Conservative Female Journalists Tell Trump To Fire Campaign Manager
By: Steve - March 31, 2016 - 10:00am

Calling Corey Lewandowski's treatment of former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields "inexcusable and unprofessional," 16 prominent conservative journalists penned a letter to the Trump campaign on Wednesday urging the Republican frontrunner to fire his campaign manager.

"Never in this line of work is it acceptable to respond to reasonable and legitimate questioning with use of physical force," the letter reads. "The photographs, audio, videos, and witness accounts documenting the treatment of Michelle Fields by Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's campaign manager, are inexcusable and unprofessional. Donald Trump should immediately remove Lewandowski from his campaign."

Lewandowski was charged with battery on Tuesday, three weeks after he allegedly grabbed Fields during a press event. He has continued to deny that the incident occurred, despite a video released Tuesday that clearly shows the interaction. And Trump has defended him by arguing that the tape doesn't show anything and claiming that journalists shouldn't be asking questions. Trump has even gone so far as to accuse Fields of attempting to assault him.

Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson said Tuesday that even if he's convicted of the charges, Lewandowski will not be fired. But the 16 journalists wrote that his removal is necessary to "highlight the difference between right and wrong."

Included in the letter's signatures are Katie Pavlich and Meghan McCain, contributors to Fox News, a network where some have defended Lewandowski's actions.

The letter is especially significant given that Breitbart, Fields former employer, did not defend her following the incident. In fact, it cast doubt on her account of the incident at the time and claimed that she may have been making it up.

Fields and three other Breitbart staff members resigned because of the company's response. Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro said at the time that the site should be "ashamed of their treatment of Fields."

After the security footage was released on Tuesday, Joel Pollak, the senior editor-at-large who initially told other staff members to stop posting about the incident on social media, apologized on Twitter. "That's pretty conclusive, even with the freeze framing," he wrote. "Clearly I was wrong."

Trump Says Women Should Be Punished For Abortions
By: Steve - March 31, 2016 - 9:00am

This just goes to show how clueless Trump is, after saying it his campaign put out a statement taking it back, saying the doctors would be punished, not the women. Even the pro-life groups were slamming him and saying he is wrong.

Here is what he said in the town hall with Chris Matthews:

The comment, made during a Town Hall that MSNBC will air Wednesday night, comes as Donald Trump is campaigning hard for a key primary in Wisconsin on April 5th.

Bigmouth Donald Trump dropped another doozy Wednesday - saying women would have to suffer "punishments" for abortions if they were illegal.

During a pre-taped interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC, the GOP front-runner said “there would have to be some form of punishment” for women who had abortions if the procedure were outlawed.

"I would say it's a very serious problem and it's a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?" Trump said, when Matthews pressed him on what form the punishment would take.

"I am pro-life," Trump added.

As for how a ban would actually work, Trump gave a convoluted non-answer.

"Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places but we have to ban it," Trump said.

The fallout was immediate, with the president of Planned Parenthood lashing out on Twitter.

"Donald Trump is vocalizing the motivations of every politician who votes to restrict access to abortion. It's about controlling women," wrote Cecile Richards.

The GOP front-runner noted whoever is elected could appoint the next Supreme Court judge -- making the stakes very high.

"The Supreme Court has set the law and frankly the judges, you're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason because you have judges where it's a real tipping point," Trump said.

"When you say what's the law, nobody knows what the law is going to be. It depends on who gets elected," Trump said.

Earth to Donald Trump, the law says abortion is legal, moron.

His Republican rival Ted Cruz also jumped on the comment.

"Don't overthink it: Trump doesn't understand the pro-life position because he's not pro-life," wrote Cruz's rapid response director Brian Phillips.

The Democrats were quick to pile on, too.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted, "Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse. Horrific and telling."

Daily Beast Slams Trump For Lies And Victim Blaming
By: Steve - March 30, 2016 - 11:00am

The Daily Beast's Goldie Taylor said this: Trump Campaign Used The "Oldest, Ugliest Plays In The Book Of Victim-Shaming."

Daily Beast editor-at-large Goldie Taylor detailed Trump and Lewandowski's "victim-shaming playbook" and criticized the campaign's defense tactics, calling them some of the "oldest, ugliest plays in the book of victim-shaming." Taylor concluded, One has to question the discernment of a man who would hire a miscreant like Lewandowski in the first place.

Here are some quotes from the article:

For weeks, Trump and his mini-mes have unfurled magnificent lie after magnificent lie about a young reporter, Michelle Fields, who said she was strong-armed by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (of whose name I am ashamed to have memorized the spelling) as she attempted to ask the candidate a question after a Florida rally at Trump National Golf Club.

Even after a video emerged that appeared to back Fields' account, even as she filed a police report in Florida about it, Trump stood beside Lewandowski. If Trump had any class at all, he might have invited the journalist in for coffee and given his regrets. He might have said there's no justifiable cause, under any circumstances, for anyone involved with his campaign to put hands on a reporter.

Wednesday, Trump has one more chance to get it right, after Florida police charged Lewandowski with simple battery. A new video, released by the Jupiter Police Department, shows Fields with an ink pen in her hand, trying to ask Trump a question, just as she'd said. And Lewandowski grabbing her, just as she'd said he had. It was taken from Trump's own cameras, footage he and his security team knew existed and did not release of their own accord.

Instead of doing the right thing, the campaign and its surrogates went after Fields anew, pulling out the oldest, ugliest plays in the book of victim-shaming. It was a defense strategy most prevalent among rapists and domestic abusers. Once again, Trump and his gang aimed to bully their way through the news cycle.

But, the fact that a man with Lewandowski's lackluster career is employed by Trump speaks volumes. That his behavior is excused and paved over says a lot about the kind of people who would inhabit a Trump administration. One has to question the discernment of a man who would hire a miscreant like Lewandowski in the first place. One has to question his commitment to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, and his stated devotion to "the women." [Daily Beast, 3/30/16]


They also point out something nobody is talking about, the fact that Trump had the video and sat on it for weeks, while lying that Lewandowski never touched her. They knew it was a lie and they kept lying about it for weeks, when they had the video the whole time.

Cruz Tax Plan Is The Same Old GOP Make The Wealthy More Rich Plan
By: Steve - March 30, 2016 - 10:00am

He claims it is a tax plan to help the hard working Americans, and yet, it's nothing but the same old right-wing propaganda we have been hearing for 30 years. In fact, it looks just like the Steve Forbes flat tax plan that doomed his presidential run many years ago.

In a new ad, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) promotes his tax plan, which he paints as a way to boost working-class Americans. Yet every analysis finds his proposals would give the rich the biggest benefits with little left over for everyone else.

"As Washington pads Wall Street's pockets, hard-working Americans get left behind," he says at the beginning of the ad. "My tax plan will change that."

A voiceover claims that by abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and instituting a 10 percent flat tax on all income, "working families" will get "higher take-home pay."

The ad finishes with Cruz saying, "When the playing field is level, American workers win."

Yet the details of Cruz's plan would significantly skew the playing field in favor of the wealthy and corporate interests. Different analyses making different assumptions have found differing results, but they all paint the same picture: the wealthiest 1 percent would get the biggest benefits from his plan, with very little going toward everyone else.

Even the conservative Tax Foundation found that about 30 percent of the benefits would flow to the top 1 percent. The centrist Tax Policy Center found that half of all benefits would be captured by the top 1 percent, and the richest fifth of the country would see more than 80 percent.

That leaves the middle and lower classes with less than 7 percent of the benefit, with the poorest tenth actually experiencing a tax increase over a decade. The left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice found that the 1 percent makes off with 65 percent of the tax cuts, with increases on the middle and lower class.

And far from cracking down on Wall Street, the plan offers some benefits for bankers. It would reduce the capital gains tax, paid on money made from investments rather than salaries, to the flat 10 percent rate, a drop for the already lower rate they pay.

Large corporations would generally benefit from the 16 percent "Business Flat Tax," much lower than the on-paper tax rate of 35 percent or the effective 19 percent rate many big companies pay.

Cruz's plan also comes with a big price tag: the Tax Policy Center found it would cost the federal government $8.6 trillion over a decade.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that his plan would cost nearly everyone in the country even more while padding the pockets of the richest. A person in the poorest fifth of the country would have about $6,000 less, while someone in the top 1 percent would have about $364,000 more.

Reality Check: Trump And Lewandowski Lied Lied Lied
By: Steve - March 30, 2016 - 9:00am

This is real simple, Donald Trump and Corey Lewandowski lied about the entire arm grab story. They lied, Lewandowski said she was delusional, he never touched her, he never met her, and he does not know her. And Trump also lied for him, saying the tape shows nothing.

Earth to Trump and some of the idiots in the media who are defending them. Look at the tape, Lewandowski reaches around a secret service agent and grabs her arm, he pulled her back and it was hard enough to put a bruise on her arm, think about that, you have to grab someone very hard to leave a bruise.

And btw, a campaign manager should not be touching anyone, the secret service were there and private security, they should be doing the touching, not a campaign manager.

The point of the story is they lied, the battery is minor, the story is the pattern of lies from Trump, that is the problem, the lies and the smear campaign against Fields.

After it happened they could have ended the whole thing by just saying he was sorry, insted they denied the truth and smeared the lady they grabbed. Then they pulled an O'Reilly, they use diversion tactics and attack the person making the claims against them.

This is what O'Reilly does when someone calls him out for a lie he told, Trump is doing the same thing. And this whole story could have been a 1 hour mention, if they had just admitted they should not have grabbed her and said they were sorry.

Instead they have made it into a 2 or 3 day story full of lies and spin, from Trump and his dishonest defenders in the media. The story is about lies from Lewandowski and Trump, it shows they are not honest people and they should never be put into the White House.

Fact: She was grabbed very hard and pulled backwards.

Fact: It was hard enough to put a bruise on her arm.

Fact: Lewandowski lied about it, saying he never touched her, when he clearly did.

Fact: She never said she was pulled down to the floor, she said she was pulled down and almost fell, but she got her balance and avoided the fall, that is exactly what she said, we have the transcripts from her 1st statement.

Fact: Trump also lied about what she said, diverting the attention away from their lies, to attack the victim.

These are facts, the video backs up her story and Trump is a liar. Lewandowski and Trump are both liars and they can not be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Even with the actual video on tv they still lied about what happened, this is not normal, it's insane. Most people would admit the truth and say they are sorry, then we could move on to real news about real issues.

Instead the insane Lewandowski and Trump go into denial mode and lie mode, one lies and the other swears to it. This is not a scandal about a reporter getting her arm grabbed, it's about a dishonest man running for President of The United States, and his dishonest campaign manager. If they can not tell the truth about something as minor as this, how can we expect them to tell the truth about actual important things.

Lying Trump Campaign Manager Charged With Battery
By: Steve - March 29, 2016 - 11:30am

And the lying Donald Trump is still saying he did nothing, even after the video come out showing him grab her, Trump said the video shows nothing, when it 100% shows him grab her by the arm, so they are both lying.

They are showing the video on MSNBC right now, and it shows Fields walking next to Trump trying to ask him a question, Lewandowski is behind them both, it shows him reach his left arm up to her and grab her left arm and pull her back away from Trump. This is a fact, it happened, and anyone who watches the video can see it happened. But Trump is still lying and saying the video shows nothing, he is a liar.

They would not charge him if they did not have enough evidence, and now they have a witness and a video. This just shows what a liar Donald Trump is, he said his campaign manager did nothing, then after a witness comes forward and a video is found showing him grab her, Trump and the manager still lie about it.

Trump also said today that his secret service agents all told him they did not see Lewandowski grab her, and that is now a known lie too, because in the video you see a secret service agent right behind Fields when Lewandowski reaches between the agent and behind Trump to grab her arm. The agent was looking right at his arm go across his body and grab her, so if Trump is telling the truth about what the agents said, then they are lying too.

Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields alleged in a March 10 piece that she was "grabbed" and "yanked" down while attempting to ask a question of Trump after his March 8 press conference. A reporter on the scene identified the alleged assailant as Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a claim later confirmed by video of the incident but denied by both Trump and his aide.

On March 11, Fields filed charges against Lewandowski. After her own outlet questioned whether Lewandowski had grabbed her, Fields resigned. Journalists have harshly criticized Trump and Lewandowski over their treatment of Fields, yet in numerous on-air interviews with Trump, they've shied away from asking him about the alleged assault.

On the Sunday after the incident, Trump appeared on four of the Sunday morning political talk shows. But the anchors of NBC's Meet the Press, CNN's State of the Union, Fox News Sunday, and CBS' Face the Nation all failed to ask Trump about the alleged assault of a reporter by his campaign manager.

Huffington Post's Michael Calderone reported on March 17 that "Fields' charge hasn't come up once" in "more than a dozen TV interviews [with Trump] amounting to over two and a half hours of airtime" on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. It also went unmentioned during Trump's March 21 interview with the Washington Post editorial board.

Now that Lewandowski has been charged it is even more important that they ask him why he continues to employ the disgraced aide. Kasich and Cruz both said they would have fired the campaign manager already. This shows that Donald Trump is a serial liar, so nothing he says can be trusted. Even with a witness and the video, they still deny it happened, which is just laughable.

President Obama Slams Media Coverage Of Presidential Primary
By: Steve - March 29, 2016 - 11:00am

Obama said this:
President Obama criticized media coverage of the 2016 presidential race during a speech given for Syracuse University's Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting in Washington D.C. During his keynote address at the ceremony, Obama said the media was responsible for more than just handing someone "a microphone" or reporting on a "slap-dash tweet."

Obama said the U.S. was "the place where you can't afford completely crazy politics." He warned of the news media's role in letting politics become "entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis," even as many journalism outlets struggle with shrinking budgets and seek to attract viewers and readers with shorter attention spans.

The president told reporters that the American people depended on them to sort through the theatrics of the presidential campaign and remained "hungry for the truth."

"These are folks who trust you when you tell them there's a problem in their schools or their water is poisoned or the political promises a candidate is promising don't add up," Obama said.

Obama said, in-depth investigative work would be remembered decades from now, rather than stories that got "the most hits."

In discussing the importance of a free press, he said there exists "an inherent tension between the president and journalists and added, "it's supposed to be that way."
And he is right, they let Trump and Cruz lie during interviews, when they know they are lying, but they never correct them or say you are wrong. They just ask questions and let them give lie answers.

Then sometimes after they are gone they have a panel of so-called political experts on to discuss what they said, and once in a while they point out a few of the lies, but sometimes they do not say anything.

They never confront Trump or Cruz with their lies and tell them what they are saying is a lie, and or impossible. And most of the time they ask them questions and they do not answer them, and they do not press them to answer the question, they just change the subject and move on to another question.

When they make a statement that is a lie and they know it, they should confront them and say that is a lie, but they never do that during the interview. They only seem to care about ratings, and that is why they cover Trump so much.

Want Proof Glenn Beck Is Insane? Here It Is!
By: Steve - March 29, 2016 - 10:00am

Glenn Beck told listeners of his radio show that Republican candidate Ted Cruz was anointed by God to save America and fulfill a Mormon end times prophecy during his program last week.

Beck was responding to a Breitbart article in which Baylor professor Thomas Kidd criticized his comments urging Mormons to rise up and save America because evangelical Southern Christians aren't listening to God.

BECK: "I have watched this man. I have prayed about this man. And I happen to believe that Ted Cruz actually was anointed for this time."

Beck spoke at a Utah rally last week where he told the crowd that Southern Evangelical Christians who voted for Donald Trump instead of Ted Cruz weren't listening to their God.

Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress and Baylor professor Thomas Kidd are quoted in the Breitbart article disagreeing with Beck saying there's no way the media icon knows how God would vote.

Beck took issue with their comments during his show saying God has given American Christian voters the opportunity to unite behind Cruz so he can save our nation, according to his website.

BECK: "I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't describe casino-owning billionaires who think it's perfectly moral to murder children for revenge as the ideal leader people should follow."

BECK: "'No real Christian' should support Trump."

BECK: "Like many Mormons, I believe in a prophecy that the Constitution will one day hang by a thread in the last days. I believe that time is now, and I believe people like (Utah Sen.) Mike Lee and Ted Cruz will save it."

BECK: "Failing to elect Cruz leaves blood on our hands."

Varney & Carlson Slam Health Care For Illegals Even Though It's Cheaper
By: Steve - March 29, 2016 - 9:00am

This is typical Republican nonsense, and one of the reasons I could never vote for any Republican, because almost all of them think this way. They oppose basic health care for illegals, even though it is up to 5 times cheaper than treating them at an emergency room.

Earth to right-wing idiots, we all oppose illegals, but if it is cheaper to give them health care than treating them at an emergency room, we should do it, morons!

And the worst part is the dishonesty from Varney and Carlson, they only report that it cost $1 Billion a year, what they fail to disclose is that it's cheaper than not doing it, and less expensive than treating them at emergency rooms.

Fox hosts Stuart Varney and Tucker Carlson criticized programs that provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants, saying the programs "seriously squeeze local budgets" and are "suicidal."

But according to conservative Wall Street Journal article that Varney and Carlson cite, politicians in the 20 counties that are spending $1 billion a year to provide free or very low-cost health care coverage for undocumented immigrants pointed out that, "it is cheaper, safer and easier to give basic health services to immigrants who can't get insurance than to treat them only in the county's emergency rooms."

The Journal also explained that "American hospitals have long been required by law to screen and stabilize any patient, regardless of his or her ability to pay, which means taxpayers already are committed to paying for care in its most expensive setting."

And the New England Healthcare Institute estimated that the same care a person, including an undocumented immigrant, receives in an emergency room "costs two to five times less at a primary care doctor."

Here is what the two Fox News idiots said:

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Well, health care coverage for illegal immigrants may be banned under federal law, and it is. But a new report shows that out of 25 U.S. counties with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations, 20 of them have programs that cover medical costs for illegal aliens.

It costs taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. Here to break down the numbers on this, Stuart Varney host of Varney & Co. on the Fox Business Network. We're glad to have him this morning. Great to see you, Stuart.

STUART VARNEY: Thanks very much, Tucker. nice to be here.

CARLSON: So, this is illegal, and yet it's happening?

VARNEY: Yes, that is precisely right. They don't get health care coverage from the federal government.


VARNEY: And they're not part of Obamacare, but counties in America with a large number of illegals in those counties, they do have programs to provide free or very, very low-cost health care to illegal immigrants. As you just pointed out, it's the Wall Street Journal, they've looked at 20 counties in America and found that they are spending $1 billion a year to provide free or very low-cost coverage for illegals.

They get doctors visits, flu shots, drugs, lab tests, some surgery, all paid for by local taxpayers. Now they, all illegals of course, can go to the emergency room. That's the law. You're sick, you go to the emergency room, they've got to treat you.

CARLSON: Anybody can.

VARNEY: Anybody can do that. So, now you add on top of this the free coverage that's given in some counties in America and you've basically got health care coverage for illegal immigrants being paid for probably by middle America. That's who's paying for it.

CARLSON: Of course, because there's so much federal money to the states.

VARNEY: What you've got here is that you are stabilizing the illegal population in the United States. They've got education. They've got health care. They've got driver's licenses in many cases. They are here. That entrenches their position in America and seriously squeezes local budgets.

You want to build a new road, you want to build a new bridge, and yet you've got to pay for illegal health care coverage at the same time. You're getting squeezed from all sides here.

CARLSON: Such a good point. It's suicidal.

Police Find Explosives At Muslim Hating Trump Supporters Home
By: Steve - March 28, 2016 - 11:00am

William Celli, a 55-year-old man from California, will spend 90 days in jail after being caught in possession of an explosive device and threatening to kill Muslims. Celli took a plea deal that places him on probation for a further three years and bans him from operating an active Facebook profile.

Celli was arrested on Dec. 20, 2015 after yelling "I'm going to kill you all" outside the Islamic Society of West Contra Costa County in Richmond, California. Police later found and detonated an explosive device at Celli's residence after receiving tips that he was constructing homemade explosives.

Celli had taken to social media in the past to express his admiration of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. "Donald Trumps on again I'm happy leaders okay but this guys a great point man I'll follow this MAN to the end of the world," Celli wrote on Facebook in October.

Despite political rhetoric demonizing Muslims worldwide, radical rightwing activists are a greater threat to Americans than jihadists, according to recent studies.

Some people took to social media to complain the sentence was too lenient.

Nonetheless, American-Muslim groups welcomed the development.

"We welcome the jail time handed out in this case and are appreciative of the cooperation and support from law enforcement and the district attorney's office shown to the local Muslim community," the Council on American-Islamic Relations SFBA Executive Director Zahra Billoo said in a statement.

"At a time when attacks on mosques and Muslim individuals are at an all-time high, this will send a message that such actions will have consequences."

Celli's sentence is lenient, in comparison with that of the Duka brothers. Three brothers from this family of Albanian Muslim immigrants are currently serving life sentences (two of the brothers were sentenced to life sentences plus 30 years) for allegedly planning an attack on Fort Dix.

The brothers were sentenced despite being caught on tape multiple times denying any intent to undertake such an attack. They were arrested while illegally buying firearms.

And Celli is not the first American to get a lenient sentence for threatening Muslims. Robert Rankin Doggart, a former candidate for Congress, said he was "plotting the annihilation" of a Muslim community in New York but was let go on a guilty plea.

Bernie Goldberg Actually Called Republicans Out For Obama Nonsense
By: Steve - March 28, 2016 - 10:00am

And he did it on the O'Reilly Factor, which might be a first. But of course, the other 99% of the Republicans still slam Obama for not doing something a Republican President has not done either.

What's really funny is O'Reilly saying most of the media analysis is partisan-driven, and that's a growing problem, as if he was not part of that partisan-driven biased analysis, which he is, and a big part as the #1 show on Fox. But he acts like he is an un-biased journalist, which is just laughable.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): We did not make very much of President Obama going to a baseball game in Cuba directly after the terror attacks in Belgium. As stated, I believe Mr. Obama simply accepts the fact that there will be terror deaths around the world, thus his reaction to them is muted. But what about the national media? How did they cover it? How did they process the president's game day decision? Joining us now from Miami, Bernie Goldberg. So what did you find out for us?

BERNARD GOLDBERG: The hard news media, Bill, generally was fair and reasonable. They reported that he was at the game despite Brussels, and they reported his reason for staying there, which was basically that he wasn't going to let terrorists disrupt his life or our lives. You could either accept that or not accept it. Reasonable people may disagree. I'm not getting involved in that.

As far as the media is concerned, what was interesting is that more than a few liberals on television who normally support Barack Obama said this didn't look good. This was not a good idea. This and the dancing in Buenos Aires were not serious. And I thought Chris Matthews, reliably liberal Chris Matthews, was very good on this.

He was talking to a liberal opinion writer for The Washington Post, a fellow named Jonathan Capehart. And Capehart said, "Republicans constantly kick the president for not doing something they think he should do." And Matthews responded by saying, "there might be another sin involved, to defend the president on every front."

Good for Chris, because what he was saying is too often liberals in the media defend Barack Obama no matter what, and I will add from the other side that too often conservatives on radio and television wouldn't give Barack Obama credit if he found a cure for cancer. Look, we need honest analysis, and too often what we're getting is not honest opinion journalism.

O'REILLY: Yeah, it's partisan-driven and that's a growing problem.

GOLDBERG: Hyper-partisan ideology, and that's not good.

GOLDBERG: Here's the part that bothers me the most. You talked about how liberals would defend certain things that frankly were indefensible. I did a little checking into history here. In 1983, the Russians shot down a 747 commercial airliner, Korean Airlines flight 007. It left New York City, it made a stop in Anchorage, AL.

It had a lot of Americans on-board, and then the Russians shot it down. It was an accident supposedly, but they shot it down. President Ronald Reagan was on vacation in California riding horses and all that.

O'REILLY: Yeah, he didn't do much.

GOLDBERG: He wasn't on a state trip to Cuba or any place else. It took him four days, and only after prodding by his advisors, to go back to Washington and make a speech about what happened.

And my point here, Bill, is that the very same conservatives who are bashing Barack Obama for not leaving a baseball game are the ones who would be defending Ronald Reagan, the sainted Ronald Reagan.

Donald Trump's Lack Of Foreign Policy Knowledge Is Stunning
By: Steve - March 27, 2016 - 11:00am

This guy has no clue about foreign policy, or how it works, and the people who support him are fools. He is not qualified to be the President, and they still vote for him. And btw, even if Trump was the President (which will never happen) he can not just change those policies, he has to get Congress to approve it, and they will never do it, so his plans are worthless.

Here are what Jeffrey Goldberg and Andrea Mitchell said about the lack of foreign policy knowledge Trump has, and it is stunning to see just how clueless he is on it.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg Slammed Trump's Lack Of Foreign Policy Knowledge Goldberg, saying this: "It's Remarkable That Someone Who Shows So Little Interest In Understanding Why The World Is Organized The Way It Is Organized Is This Close To The Presidency."

Partial transcript:
JOHN DICKERSON (HOST): Jeffrey, I want to switch now to you. Donald Trump gave two interviews this week, one to the Washington Post editorial board and The New York Times, particularly on foreign policy. What did you get from his foreign policy worldview?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I saw that he has no understanding of the post-war international order that was created by the United States, that he has no understanding of why we maintain alliances with such treaty partners as Japan and South Korea, Britain, NATO, and the importance of maintaining those stable relationships with other democracies, shows that he has no idea of nuclear doctrine.

It was really remarkable to imagine that someone who shows so little interest in understanding why the world is organized the way it is organized is this close to the presidency.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Donald Trump Is "Completely Uneducated About Any Part Of The World" Mitchell said this: "When He Doesn't Know Something, He Just Changes The Subject, Makes It All About Himself."

Partial transcript:
CHUCK TODD (HOST): I want to go -- because what I think could have been the story of the week was this unbelievable editorial board interview that Donald Trump did with The Washington Post. Let me play a longer excerpt of it and get you to respond.

By the way, just so folks know, when we excerpted it, so then everybody around the room introduced themselves, subject got changed.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Exactly. He cannot stick to a subject. It is remarkable. And when he doesn't know something, he just changes the subject, makes it all about himself.

TODD: On national security it's a very noticeable -- especially to your ears and mine.

MITCHELL: Absolutely. And this was a week where he could have gone after President Obama, arguably. There's a lot happening and the president has some vulnerabilities. So does Hillary Clinton. But instead he's all over the lot. And then The New York Times, David Sanger, Maggie Haberman, do an interview with him, a 90-minute interview and it's in today's paper and online.

And the transcript, if you read the transcript online, he would cancel defense treaties with Japan and South Korea against North Korea. He doesn't mind, he would be okay if Japan and South Korea go nuclear. American policy for decades since World War II has been trying to keep nukes out of that arena. He would stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia if they don't pay more for their defense. We need oil. We are not energy independent. We rely on oil still --

TODD: Sure.

MITCHELL: For our daily needs. He is completely all over the lot on Iran. He believes -- he complained that Iran isn't buying our planes. It had to be pointed out to him that Iran is still under sanctions and cannot buy American planes. He thinks North Korea and Iran are the biggest trading partners when North Korea's biggest trading partner is China. He is completely uneducated about any part of the world.
Trump is clueless about foreign policy, he is just a bully that got lucky and the Republican voters are falling for his con game. Can you imagine what the price of gas would be if we stopped buying oil from Saudi Arabia? Can you imagine how much TV's and other electronics would cost if Trump started a trade war with Japan and China?

This fool does not care, because he is wealthy and he can afford to pay whatever it cost. But the rest of us can not afford $5.00 a gallon gas, or $1000 TV's, Trump is an idiot, and if you vote for him you are a fool.

Republican Run Kansas & Louisiana Have Massive Debt Problems
By: Steve - March 27, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. Think back to last year, O'Reilly did show after show and segment after segment slamming the Democratic run California for their debt problems. Saying that it shows how liberal Government policies do not work, even though they have mostly turned things around and are fixing their debt. Not to mention, a lot of that debt was from the Bush recession.

Unlike California, Kansas and Louisiana, who have debt problems and it is getting worse, not better. They are run by Republicans, who put far-right policy programs in place, and it has been a total failure. The Republican policies have failed in Kansas and Louisiana, and O'Reilly does not say a word.

In 2010, the tea-party put Sam Brownback into the Kansas State's governor's mansion and Republican majorities in both houses of its legislature. Together, they implemented the conservative movement's blueprint for Utopia: They passed massive tax breaks for the wealthy and repealed all income taxes on more than 100,000 businesses. They tightened welfare requirements, privatized the delivery of Medicaid, cut $200 million from the education budget, eliminated four state agencies and 2,000 government employees.

In 2012, Brownback helped replace the few remaining moderate Republicans in the legislature with conservative true believers. The following January, after signing the largest tax cut in Kansas history, Brownback told the Wall Street Journal, "My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, 'See, we've got a different way, and it works.'"

As you've probably guessed, that model collapsed. Like the budget plans of every Republican presidential candidate, Brownback's real live experiment proceeded from the hypothesis that tax cuts for the wealthy are such a boon to economic growth, they actually end up paying for themselves (so long as you kick the undeserving poor out of their welfare hammocks).

The Koch-backed Kansas Policy Institute predicted that Brownback's 2013 tax plan would generate $323 million in new revenue. During its first full year in operation, the plan produced a $688 million loss.

Meanwhile, Kansas job growth actually trailed that of its neighboring states. With that nearly $700 million deficit, the state had bought itself a 1.1 percent increase in jobs, just below Missouri's 1.5 percent and Colorado's 3.3.

Brownback pledged to bring 100,000 new jobs to the state in his second term; as of January, he has brought 700. What's more, personal income growth slowed dramatically since the tax cuts went into effect. Between 2010 and 2012, Kansas saw income growth of 6.1 percent, good for 12th in the nation; from 2013 to 2015, that rate was 3.6 percent, good for 41st.

Meanwhile, revenue shortfalls have devastated the state's public sector along with its most vulnerable citizens. Since Brownback's inauguration, 1,414 Kansans with disabilities have been thrown off Medicaid. In 2015, six school districts in the state were forced to end their years early for lack of funding. Cuts to health and human services are expected to cause 65 preventable deaths this year in Sedgwick County alone.

In February, tax receipts came in $53 million below estimates; Brownback immediately cut $17 million from the state's university system. And this is not lost on the people of Kansas -- like it has with O'Reilly, as of November, Brownback's approval rating was 26 percent, the lowest of any governor in the United States.

Louisiana did the same thing, and they have the same results. When Republican Bobby Jindal moved into the governor's mansion in 2008, he inherited a $1 billion surplus. When he moved out last year, Louisiana faced a $1.6 billion projected deficit.

Jindal passed the largest tax cut in the state's history and then refused to reverse course when the state started tanking. Jindal's giveaway to the wealthiest citizens in the country's second-poorest state cost Louisiana roughly $800 million every year. To make up that gap, Jindal slashed social services, raided the state’s rainy-day funds, and papered over the rest with reckless borrowing.

Today, the state is scrambling to resolve a $940 million budget gap for this fiscal year, with a $2 billion shortfall projected for 2017. It is so bad Louisiana can no longer afford to provide public defenders for all its criminal defendants. Its Department of Children and Family Services may soon be unable to investigate every reported instance of child abuse. And education funding is down 44 percent since Jindal took office. The state’s hospitals are likely to see at least $64 million in funding cuts this year.

What has happened to these states should be a national story; because we are one election away from it being our national story. Ted Cruz claims his tax plan will cost less than $1 trillion in lost revenue over the next ten years. Leaving aside the low bar the Texas senator sets for himself -- my giveaway to the one percent will cost a bit less than the Iraq War! — Cruz only stays beneath $1 trillion when you employ the kind of "dynamic scoring" that has consistently underestimated the costs of tax cuts in Kansas.

Under a conventional analysis, the bill runs well over $3 trillion, with 44 percent of that lost money accruing to the one percent. John Kasich's tax plan includes cutting the top marginal rate by more than ten percent along with a similar cut to the rates on capital gains and business taxes. Even considering Kasich's appetite for Social Security cuts, his plan must rely on the same supply-side voodoo that Kansas has so thoroughly discredited.

As for Donald Trump, his tax cuts would cost $10 trillion over the next ten years, with 40 percent of that massive sum filling the pockets of Trump's economic peers.

If any of these men are elected president, they will almost certainly take office with a House and Senate eager to scale up the "red-state model." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said of Brownback's Kansas, "This is exactly the sort of thing we (Republicans) want to do here, in Washington, but can't, at least for now."

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's budgets all depend on the same magical growth that has somehow escaped Kansas.

Unfortunately, the fall of Kansas has failed to inspire a similar reckoning with the policies that those ugly advertisements were designed to sell. Trump's praise of mob violence and religious discrimination has spurred much righteous outrage from the National Review. Kansas's shortened school-years have spurred none.

When Donald Trump makes a gaffe, reporters confront Republican leaders and demand a response. When the GOP's economic platform destroys two U.S. states, O'Reilly ignores it all. Along with most of the media, this should be national news, and yet, hardly anyone knows what happened, because the corporate owned media barely mentions it.

They are too busy with wall to wall Trump coverage for ratings.

Even The Republican Scarborough Is Slamming Cruz For Muslim Comments
By: Steve - March 27, 2016 - 9:00am

Joe Scarborough Slams Ted Cruz For Calling For Increased Policing Of Muslim Communities

Scarborough: What Cruz Is Proposing "Is The Exact Opposite Of What We Need To Do. It Makes Us Less Safe"

Here is a partial transcript:

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): Well, you know, I am the last person that's ever been accused of being politically correct in this fight against terrorism. I believe we need enhanced interrogation techniques. I'm not talking about waterboarding, but we need to be far more aggressive.

We don't want to make the same mistakes we made leading up to 9/11 and then jerk too far in one direction. We're too far in the other direction now. So I am not politically correct. That said, what Ted Cruz said yesterday is the exact opposite of what we need to do. It makes us less safe.

I won't even talk about American values. Let's not talk about American values. Let's talk about American safety. If we are going to win the war against Islamic terrorism in the United States, if we're going to make sure we don't end up looking like Europe, we do that by continuing to do what Americans have done for over 200 years, accept immigrants into this country and integrate.

Muslim Americans have successfully integrated into this country better than any non-Muslim country in the world. They're pursuing the American dream. One percent of Americans are Muslim. Ten percent of doctors in this country, I've read, are Muslim Americans. Muslim Americans are entrepreneurs. They are leaders in this country.

Ted Cruz could not have it more wrong. I'm not talking about values. I'm not talking about reaching out and touching someone. I'm not talking about teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony. I'm talking about beating ISIS. You beat ISIS by having Muslim Americans embrace the American dream.

And I had one leader in this country, one Muslim American text me earlier in this show saying, "In Europe, Muslims look at themselves as Muslims first and European second, as far as identity goes. In America they see themselves as Americans who are Muslims." We have to keep it that way. And you listen to what Ted Cruz says and it's certainly --


SCARBOROUGH: Again, the exact opposite, at the worst possible time.

Arizona Primary Voting Was A Disaster With 5 Hour Waits
By: Steve - March 26, 2016 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it. Because he is not a real journalist, he is a right-wing hack that ignores a lot of real news.


Maricopa County failed massively in planning for Arizona's 2016 presidential primary.

We don't need to know the answers yet to make the judgment that what happened at Maricopa County polling places on Tuesday was a massive failure in planning and execution.

No fact tells you that more clearly than this one: At midnight, some Arizonans were still standing in line trying to cast a vote in Phoenix. That is an outrage.

Some residents of metro Phoenix waited in line more than five hours to vote. They waited because county bureaucrats badly bungled a decision to reduce polling places as a cost-cutting measure. Those officials apparently decided the rise in early voting gave them an opportunity to cut corners and save money.

They reduced polling places from 200 four years ago to 60 on Tuesday. While they made it possible for county residents to vote in any of the polling places, not just their precincts, they did not account for such things as high turnout or parking.

Some people tell us they gave up trying to vote because there was no parking, only a massive traffic jam.

County officials owe us answers, not excuses. This is no time to be cheap. Elections are not a time to skimp on costs. You make voting a living hell for citizens and you undermine their confidence in their government and in an electoral system they expect to be fair and honest.

Today, a lot of Maricopa County residents are wondering what was the motive behind the madness -- whether county officials, indeed, meant to suppress turnout.

There are decent people running the county elections office, but they failed where other counties did not. No other county in Arizona reported the kinds of torturous lines that formed up at Maricopa County polling places.

Pima County provided its voters 130 sites, more than twice as many as Maricopa County, for one-quarter as many voters. That led to ease of voting in the southern part of our state, and disaster in urban Phoenix.

Here's what one Maricopa County voter wrote to us:

"I literally went to multiple polling places, a total of FIVE separate times, only to find that the 1 hour wait (which I didn't have time for this morning) only increased as the day went on. Eventually, I gave up at 6:40 p.m. when I saw the line at its longest, at least 2-3 hours. This was the first time in my life I genuinely felt disenfranchised."

"Disenfranchised" was a flash word on Tuesday. Many voters used it.

We heard from a lot of hardy souls who stayed in line to participate in this election.

But how many more just gave up and left the polls without casting a vote?

How many of them are likely to skip the next election?

Trump Caught Lying Again About Women Voters
By: Steve - March 26, 2016 - 10:00am

What's funny is how he calls Ted Cruz the liar, when fact checkers have shown that Trump lies more than Cruz, Trump is the #1 liar and Cruz is #2, so they are both liars.

Trump recently said women love him and that he will get the womens vote, and that is a massive lie, because most women hate him, and the women that do only love him because he is wealthy, if he was broke and worked at Burger King he would be married to some ugly fat woman.

Here are the facts:

Trump has a big problem with women. This month, about half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. (About 40 percent of male GOP primary voters said the same.) Compare that to their relative willingness to accept Trump's rivals. Only about three in ten female Republican voters say they can't imagine backing Ted Cruz (32 percent) and John Kasich (27 percent).

When it comes to the general electorate, Trump has an even more pronounced problem with female voters. Trump's favorability with women overall is a dismal 21 percent positive 70 percent negative. With men, it's 28 percent positive 59 percent negative. And while women traditionally vote for Democratic candidates in larger numbers than men, data shows that a Trump nomination would exacerbate the issue for Republicans.

Women outside the GOP dislike Trump even more - Nearly seven in 10 female voters feel unfavorably toward Trump, according to an average of recent polls. About half of female voters have an unfavorable view of Cruz, and just over a third have an unfavorable view of Kasich.

Trump's net favorability rating is also distinctly worse among women than his Republican rivals. Female voters are 42 points more likely to view him unfavorably than favorably, compared to Cruz (-17) and Kasich (+3).

His unpopularity extends beyond women - Trump holds an average 31 percent favorability rating, making him the least-liked GOP candidate overall. Cruz has a 34 percent favorable rating, while Kasich has a 41 percent rating.

Study Says Trump Speeches Are At A 5th Grade Level
By: Steve - March 25, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is more bad news about Trump O'Reilly has totally ignored. An analysis of the speeches of Republican presidential candidates by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that The Donald's grammar is about that of a fifth grader.

Trump's speaking style (often rambling and off the cuff) has become one of the many bizarre hallmarks of his entirely unconventional campaign. He even recently remarked that he is highly educated and that he has "the best words."

The study, entitled "A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign," found that Trump also scored lowest in vocabulary, coming in at the seventh-grade level.

Trump's grammar isn't just bad for this year -- he's also pretty close to being the worst of any president measured. Trump barely ekes it out over -- go ahead and take a guess -- George W. Bush.

Abraham Lincoln scored the highest.

Trump scored low, but he also showed the greatest ability to change his grammar depending the audience. In other words, Trump is a grammar chameleon who can change to suit his listeners.

"Candidates give speeches to differing types of audiences over time, ranging from small gatherings with a specific issue in mind to larger general ones," the study noted.

Elizabeth Warren Shows Everyone How Trump Is A Loser
By: Steve - March 25, 2016 - 9:00am

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tore into Donald Trump on Monday, turning the Republican presidential front-runner's favorite insult against him.

"Let's be honest -- Donald Trump is a loser," Warren wrote in a Facebook post, noting his failed business ventures and bankruptcies as well as the ongoing fraud lawsuit against Trump University.

However, Warren warned, it's important to take Trump seriously.

"Many of history's worst authoritarians started out as losers -- and Trump is a serious threat," she wrote. "The way I see it, it's our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser he started it."

And btw, almost nobody is slamming Trump for his lack of political experience, he has never been a Mayor, a Governor, a Congressman, or a Senator, nothing. But when Obama ran for President he was slammed daily for his lack of political experience, especially by O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans, and Obama was a Senator, which is far more than Trump has ever been.

Warren said this:
Let's be honest - Donald Trump is a loser. Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father's empire afloat by cheating people with scams like Trump University and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who've concluded he's so bad at business that he might have more money today if he'd put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.

Trump seems to know he's a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism. But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn't mean he'll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year - and it's time to wake up.

People talk about how "this is the most important election" in our lifetime every four years, and it gets stale. But consider what hangs in the balance. Affordable college. Accountability for Wall Street. Healthcare for millions of Americans. The Supreme Court. Big corporations and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes. Expanded Social Security. Investments in infrastructure and medical research and jobs right here in America.

The chance to turn our back on the ugliness of hatred, sexism, racism and xenophobia. The chance to be a better people.

More than anyone we've seen before come within reach of the presidency, Donald Trump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. Many of history's worst authoritarians started out as losers - and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it's our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it.
Senator Warren has strongly condemned Trump -- and the Republican Party for enabling his dominance in the race.

Last week, she urged "decent people everywhere" to stand up to Trump, arguing the businessman is a "bigger, uglier threat every day that goes by."

And in an interview with MSNBC earlier this month, she argued the GOP only has itself to blame for Trump's rise.

"They are paying the price for their own extremism. It has now taken them by the throat," she said of the Republican Party. "Guys, this is what you did to yourselves."

When asked about Warren's comments, Trump referred to Warren as "the Indian."

O'Reilly Claims Border Wall Will Stop Drugs From Coming Into America
By: Steve - March 24, 2016 - 11:00am

Which is just laughable, and a ridiculous lie. Here is what the insane O'Reilly said, and btw, Krauthammer sat there and let O'Reilly tell that lie without once saying he is nuts.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Finally, immigration and border security. There is no question a wall between the U.S.A. and Mexico is needed, simply to stop the tons of hard narcotics flowing into America. The drug cartels control much of Mexico, and that's not likely to improve any time soon. We need to stop the madness down there and secure our border.

A wall will not solve every problem, but it can be effective, as the Israelis have shown the world it's worked over there. Once an effective barrier is built, illegal aliens currently living here can be dealt with in a fair way. They will all have to register with the federal government. All of them. And then, Congress should pass a series of new laws defining their status.

Those who have broken immigration law are not entitled to citizenship. But, we can be humane if they have kids who are American citizens, extended families, been here a long time. We can be humane, and allow some of them to work off a punishment in return for a green card.

So, those are the top three priorities for the new president. And now Talking Points has a very simple question. Do you believe any of the candidates could accomplish those things? And that's the memo.
And now for some facts, from an expert, which is not Bill O'Reilly.

Retired DEA agent: Trump's wall would do nothing to stop drug coming across the border

According to former D.E.A. agent Mike Vigil, Republican Presidential front-runner, Donald Trump's purposed wall on the southern border would have little to no effect on stopping the flow of drugs coming across the border.

Vigil spent 20 years working undercover in major investigations against drug cartels in Colombia and Mexico.

"Donald Trump's wall would have very little impact on the movement of narcotics being coming over the border," Vigil said. We already sieze thousands of pounds of drugs with billions, and it does not do any good, 10 times more than that get through, and you can get drugs easier today than you could 20 years ago when the so-called war on drugs was started.

I do not do drugs, but I know some people my age that do, and they tell me they can get drugs just about any time they want them, and they are better than they were 20 years ago, the quality is better. So the drug war has been a massive failure, O'Reilly and the Republicans just will not admit it.

He added, "Mexican drug traffickers would punch a hole through it, fly over it and would be able to circumvent easily by only using simple technology."

"Donald Trump and O'Reilly are playing to what people want to believe when it comes to illegal immigration, but the truth is, that wall will serve very little purpose," Vigil said.

The former DEA agent says it's absurd to think that Donald Trump's Wall would have any influence on drug trafficking into the United States.

NYPD Slams Ted Cruz For Muslim Neighborhood Patrols
By: Steve - March 24, 2016 - 10:00am

Even the New York Police Department is telling the idiot Ted Cruz that his plan to have the cops (and or the FBI) patrol and monitor Muslims in Muslim-Heavy neighborhoods is a crazy, ridiculous and impossible plan.

Not only is it impossible, it's a stupid idea that would only make terrorism worse. And it would not do any good, about all it would do is waste the cops time.

In a tweet Tuesday night, New York Police Department spokesman J. Peter Donald slammed the Republican presidential candidate for suggesting that law enforcement officials specifically patrol Muslim-heavy neighborhoods.

"Hey, @tedcruz are our nearly 1k Muslim officers a 'threat' too? It's hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement," Donald wrote.

Donald's comments came hours after the NYPD commissioner himself went after Cruz.

Standing alongside New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, in a press conference on Tuesday, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton slammed Cruz. Bratton similarly pointed out that many of the Muslim officers serving in the NYPD were also military servicemembers.

"The statements he made today is why he's not going to become president of this country," Bratton said. "We don't need a president that doesn't respect the values that form the foundation of this country."

In an interview on CNN on Tuesday, Cruz said he would model his plan after the controversial, lawsuit-plagued NYPD program that used undercover officers to monitor neighborhoods and businesses where Muslim New Yorkers congregated. Cruz also slammed de Blasio for ending the program, which the mayor faulted for not leading to a single arrest.

Even the far-right neo-con Charles Krauthammer is slamming Cruz for his statement, he said this:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The reason this idea of heightened patrols in Muslim areas is a terrible mistake. The United States has the most successful assimilation, integration of Muslim population of any country in the West. It's not even close. The reason Europe is in trouble, it has these enclaves where the police either can't go or won't go.

That doesn't exist here, and the last thing that we should do is to alienate the Muslims by having heightened patrols in their streets. Yes, you want to have contacts with mosques. You want to know what's happening inside, but you are not going to pick anything up by having police cars patrolling the streets. It's not going to do it. It's the wrong way to go about it.

BRET BAIER (HOST): OK, but you acknowledge the accusations, at least, that radicalization is happening inside our country in some mosques in some Muslim areas?

KRAUTHAMMER: There's no question it's happening, it's happened. Anwar al-Awlaki was actually a preacher in a Virginia mosque. There is no question. But the way to go after it is not to have police cars and military jeeps in the streets of the neighborhoods. It's to develop more intimate relationship with the community leaders and with the mullahs.
And btw, over 5,000 Muslims are in the U.S. military, should we monitor them too, they are fighting for our country, does Ted Cruz want them to be watched too?

The insane Ted Cruz also said we could have the FBI monitor the Muslims, this is also crazy talk that is impossible. In the entire country we have about 35,000 FBI agents, which is the same number of Police we have in New York alone.

So if you had every single FBI agent we have go to New York, they could watch some of the Muslims, but that is just one city in the whole country. It is impossible to monitor all the Muslims, it can not be done. Now think about this, when a far-right Christian loon is involved in terrorism, or kills an abortion doctor, Cruz and Trump do not call for all Christians to be watched.

Bill O'Reilly Is A Biased Right-Wing Joke
By: Steve - March 24, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is some more proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack. Now remember that he says he is a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone who is fair to both sides, he also says he only deals in the facts, that his show is a no speculation zone, and that he has an equal number of Republican and Democratic guests.

Then he did this: On the Wednesday night Factor show O'Reilly spent his entire Talking Points Memo slamming Hillary Clinton for her position on ISIS and Terrorism. O'Reilly also said the only way to defeat terrorism is brute force, which almost all the military, political, and terrorism experts say is wrong.

I would say that 90% of the military, political, and terrorism experts say brute force will not win the war on terrorism, and in fact, they say it would make terrorism worse. But O'Reilly says brute force is the only answer, as if it's a fact, when it is simply the opinion of a few clueless right-wing fools that think that. About 10% of the far-right think that, even though the terrorism experts disagree with them.

Then after the Talking Points Memo O'Reilly had 2 guests on to debate his TPM, one Democratic terrorism expert and one Republican terrorism expert. Haha, you fools, of course that never happened. It never happened because that is what a real non-partisan Independent journalist with a real no spin zone would do, so O'Reilly did not do it.

O'Reilly had 1 guest, the former Mayor of New York the Republican Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani. Yes, you heard me right, O'Reilly had Giuliani on, who is not a terrorism expert. He was simply the Mayor of New York during the 9-11 terrorist attacks, so he is no more a terrorism expert than Donald Trump is, who he admitted to supporting.

That is not journalism, it's partisan garbage. And Giuliani spent the entire biased segment saying Hillary Clinton is clueless about the war on terrorism, while promoting Trump and Cruz as leaders who would do a far better job on terrorism than Hillary.

Which is total nonsense, because Hillary was in the White House for 8 years with Bill Clinton, she was a Senator, and she was the Secretary of State for 4 years under Obama. Trump has done none of that, and Cruz has simply been the most hated Senator in Government who has done nothing and who nobody likes.

From the start of the show until Giuliani was gone, it was nothing but a one sided right-wing propaganda spin zone for the RNC, Trump, and Cruz. There was no fairness, no balance, and no experts on. A real journalist would have had two terrorism experts on and had a real debate about it.

But O'Reilly does not want you to see that, he wants you to have a one sided view of the world and terrorism. That is why he only had Giuliani on with no Democratic guest for balance. Giuliani was on to promote Trump and to agree with O'Reilly, to reinforce his ridiculous Talking Points Memo, as if what he said was correct. It's called propaganda, and positive reinforcement, not to mention brainwashing.

O'Reilly brainwashes his viewers with this right-wing bias and propaganda until they believe it's a fact and true, when it's one sided nonsense with a minority opinion of a few far-right loons who are not military or terrorism experts.

Ask yourself this simple question: How come O'Reilly had Rudy Giuliani on instead of two actual terrorism experts?

And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, that's fair and balanced? How?

Later in the show the Republican pollster Frank Luntz was on, and O'Reilly even had the Republican comedian Dennis Miller on to give his views of Terrorism, politics, Hillary Clinton, etc. Now remember this is the same lunatic who said we should blow up a nuclear bomb to remind the rest of the world we still have them. When asked about the nuclear fallout and the radiation, Miller said just blow it up when the wind is blowing the right way, whatever the hell that means.

The last segment was even more ridiculous, O'Reilly had a right-wing loon on from Emory University, who hates liberals and does a hate liberals blog, to discuss a student who wrote Trump 2016 on the sidewalk and some buildings in chalk. O'Reilly put this stooge on to cry about the school doing an investigation to find out who did it, even though it is illegal to deface school property.

O'Reilly even pointed out what the student did was illegal, but he said it was about much more than that. And of course there was no Democratic guest on for balance, or anyone from the school. How the hell is this news? One student at a college wrote Trump 2016 in chalk on a sidewalk and some buildings, this is not news. And it is a crime, but it's ok with O'Reilly because Trump is his friend.

O'Reilly & The GOP Hypocrisy On Judicial Nominees
By: Steve - March 23, 2016 - 10:00am

In May of 2011 I wrote this about the hypocrisy on judicial nominees by the Republicans and Bill O'Reilly. In 2005 they even had a website called and said it was basically treason and unconstitutional not to give a judge appointed by Bush an up or down vote.

O'Reilly was right with the GOP, doing segment after segment on it slamming the Democrats and promoting the Republican position, and also promoting the website. But now that Republicans are blocking votes from Obama appointed judges O'Reilly does not say a word about it, except to lie about the judges and not call for them to get a vote.

This is 100% proof that Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge, and nobody who is a guest on his show ever mentions it. On top of all that, O'Reilly will not have me on as a guest to bring this up because he knows I have nailed him, so he just ignores me and pretends my website is not even online.

Here is my blog posting from 2011:

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters
By: Steve - May 22, 2011 - 9:00am

Thursday the Senate voted by a 52-43 majority to end the GOP's filibuster of Professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to a federal appeal court - which, in the bizarro world that is the U.S. Senate, means that Liu's nomination will not move forward.

The vote was entirely along party lines, except that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted yea and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted nay.

Now think about this, just six years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters. Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a horrific betrayal of their constitutional role.

Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional. And here is a sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:
-- Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote."

-- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): "Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It's the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it."

-- Tom Coburn (R-OK): "If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years."

-- John Cornyn (R-TX): "We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations."

-- Mike Crapo (R-ID): "Until this Congress, not one of the President's nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote."

-- Chuck Grassley (R-IA): "It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that's essentially what we'd be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster."

-- Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation."
This willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is normal for the GOP.

Sen. Nelson's vote against Liu, however, is utterly inexplicable. When Bush was naming judges, Nelson voted to end cloture on Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a radical tenther who once compared liberalism to "slavery" and Social Security to a "socialist revolution."

It is impossible to imagine what standard Nelson applied that would keep a mainstream voice like Liu off the court, but allow Judge Brown to shape the law.

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because Republicans are doing it now. But when Democrats were doing it under Bush, O'Reilly reported the hell out of it.

O'Reilly did segment after segment about it back then, and even joined in with the Republicans calling for every judge to get an up or down vote. But now that Republicans are doing it, he is silent as a mouse. These people have no shame, I guess they think we forgot about all this stuff, and they were wrong.

The Republican Party Is To Blame For Donald Trump
By: Steve - March 23, 2016 - 9:00am

Donald Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

From their "Dark Money" bagman Karl Rove to their philosophical guru David Brooks, the GOP elites are scrambling to save the Republican Party from Donald Trump and the extremists and crackpots who support Donald Trump. But who will save the party from the elites?

Look around at just some of the other sheer lunacy their party perpetrates when it's not trying to shut the government down, redistribute wealth upward, and prevent the president of the United States (who, the last time we looked, has the constitutional right and mandate) to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Republicans in southern California just got a 7-6 majority on the region's air quality board and have set out to reverse all of its safeguards, "reaffirming new smog rules backed by oil refineries and other major polluters."

Mary Lou Bruner, a Republican loon in Texas who claimed that a young Barack Obama had worked as a black male prostitute, is on track to become a key voice on the state's board of education, the group that, as Matt Levin at the Houston Chronicle writes, is, "drawing intense criticism for textbooks that, among other issues, downplayed slavery and racial segregation."

That's important because the school board is such a major buyer of books its decisions affect editorial content in texts all over the country. So remember that Bruner is an eccentric whose Facebook declarations include "School shootings started after the schools started teaching evolution" and "The dinosaurs on the ark may have been babies and not able to reproduce. It might make sense to take the small dinosaurs onto the ark instead of the ones bigger than a bus."

Huh? That's insane, and yet the Republican elites seem quite satisfied to have a Mary Lou Bruner as the arbiter of what their children read in schools.

And while we're talking about education, go to Louisiana and look at the legacy that former Republican governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has left behind for his Democratic successor, John Bel Edwards.

"Louisiana stands at the brink of economic disaster. Without sharp and painful tax increases in the coming weeks, the government will cease to offer many of its vital services, including education opportunities...A few universities will shut down and declare bankruptcy. Graduations will be canceled. Students will lose scholarships...Since the 2007-08 school year, Louisiana has cut funding for higher education by 44 percent, the sharpest pullback in the nation."

Part of this can be attributed to the precipitous drop in oil and gas prices and loss of fossil fuel industry revenue crucial to the state's economy. But the real problem, according to the Associated Press, is that:

"Jindal, burnishing his fiscal conservative credentials for his failed presidential campaign, refused to hike taxes or approve any action that even resembled a tax hike, including trimming expensive business tax credits, even amid an economic downturn...Legislators are hearing that cuts described by the Jindal administration as 'efficiencies' actually went much deeper, striking at services. They've learned about borrowing practices that increased state debts and about threats to Louisiana's cash flow because it spent down reserves."

The result? A calamitous budget crisis in the second most impoverished state in the country, a $900 million shortfall that has to be fixed by June 30th and another amounting to two billion dollars that will need to be closed next year.

So that's how you govern when you have the power? Thanks, Republicans!

"Remember that this is the same party whose elites deceived America into war after cutting taxes on the wealthy so they wouldn't have to pay for it."

And while we're at it, look at the once-great state of Kansas, where, under the right-wing ideology and bumbling leadership of Republican governor Sam Brownback, the clowns are running the circus. The state legislature there is moving toward passage of a bill that would allow the impeachment of Kansas Supreme Court justices for, among other newly-thought of high crimes and misdemeanors, "attempting to usurp the power" of said same legislature or the executive branch.

The reason? "A recent state Supreme Court decision, citing the Legislature's constitutional duty to properly finance public schools, has demanded that lawmakers fix a school funding formula by June 30th or risk the shutdown of public schools for the 2016-2017 school year."

The same court has also overturned death sentences and is considering a case that would void anti-abortion rules. The Republican legislature doesn't like any of this one bit -- not to mention that four of the seven judges were appointed by former Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

So in a classic, don't-raise-the-bridge-lower-the-river solution, the GOP legislators -- who outnumber Democrats by three to one - have decided that the answer is to do away with the judges they don't like and to hell with checks and balances.

In the words of Charlie Pierce, "They recognize no limits to their power, no curbs to their desire. There are few frontiers in democratic government that they will not work to violate, or to twist to their own purposes. And they absolutely will not stop. Ni shagu nazad, as Stalin said to his army. Not one step backwards."

What happened to Kansas? A coup against common sense, sound principles and the "general welfare" hailed in the preamble to the US Constitution. And as it all has gone down, Republican elites seem to have developed a case of laryngitis.

Let's also not forget what Republican Governor Scott Walker has done to Wisconsin and what the Michigan Republican Governor Richard Snyder did to Flint. Check out how the Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner is endeavoring to "fix" higher education there.

And no Republican leader has dared call out Grover Norquist, whose monomaniacal crusade against government has thrown public education into crisis, turned streets and highways into bottomless potholes, and produced stratospheric deficits? (Bobby Jindal, by the way, was just one of the many who signed Norquist's no-tax pledge, a major reason why his state is barely holding on by its fingernails.)

Finally, this is the party whose elites deceived America into war after cutting taxes on the wealthy so they wouldn't have to pay for it. All of which leads us to the conclusion that what's wrong with the GOP ain't just about Donald Trump. Over decades, the Republicans have built castles of corruption and citadels of crony capitalism across the country and now the angry villagers are climbing over the ramparts.

And Bill O'Reilly never mentions any of this, because he is a Republican and he is as corrupt as any of them. Donald Trump is his friend, and he defends all his racism and hatred, making O'Reilly just as bad as Trump, if not worse, because he is supposed to be a non-partisan journalist who tells the truth to the people in a so-called no spin zone.

Fox News Andrea Tantaros Is A Clueless Fool
By: Steve - March 22, 2016 - 11:00am

And yet, she is used as an expert on politics, she is on many Fox shows and billed as a political analyst, including the O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly puts her on all the time to give so-called political analysis, even though she is a far-right loon who barely has a clue what she is talking about, and is wrong half the time with her analysis.

If you have ever watched Fox News for any length of time, you have most likely seen Andrea Tantaros featured on the network in some capacity. Either on the show she co-hosts, Outnumbered, or as a featured analyst on any number of the network's other shows.

I'm really not sure why anyone would ever consider her an expert on much of anything. While Fox News personalities like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly make most of the headlines, Tantaros spews some of the most asinine garbage I've ever heard.

Like the time she insisted healthy school lunches were causing mental problems, or when she claimed school snow days were an attack on Christianity, or when she basically said it was alright for the United States to commit torture because we are awesome.

So, in an effort to add to her long list of embarrassing statements, Tantaros has once again made a fool out of herself while trying to defend Donald Trump from possibly losing the nomination through a brokered convention.

"Who is correct on this?" Tantaros asked Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano. "I'm not sure the Founding Fathers would love what's happening on the Republican side. I'm not sure that's how they set up the framework for the United States of America."

"But constitutionally, can you weigh in on what the party is doing?" she continued. "Do they have a right to do it?"

"I disagree with you on the Founding Fathers," Napolitano explained. "Because I think politics was as rough and tumble in that era even as it is today. There just wasn't cable television around to record all of it. The Republican Party has a history of these things. It's not unprecedented."

And he is absolutely right.

In fact, it wasn't until the last few decades that state-by-state primaries were used to pick a party's nominee. In 1976, the nomination process went all the way to the convention where Republicans chose Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan - so it just happened 40 years ago.

That makes Tantaros comments even more idiotic; she's on a news network as a political analyst of some kind and she doesn't even seem to understand the history of presidential nominations.

Did she really believe they held state-by-state primaries since the founding of this nation?

Not only that, as Napolitano pointed out, there's nothing written in any official law book that says any political party has to adhere to what voters want. Sure, it makes sense for them to select the nominee who was most popular in the primaries - but they don't have to.

These parties could quite literally bypass these primaries and caucuses entirely and simply nominate whoever the hell they want to. I know that sounds very "un-Democratic," but it's the truth the way the system is currently set up.

There is no law that says a party has to nominate the person with the most votes, and in fact, Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000 and Bush still won, because of the electoral college. The party has a rule that says if you get 50% of the delegates, plus one, which is 237 then you are the nominee, if you do not get the 237 delegates, they can nominate anyone, actual votes are meaningless, that is a rule the RNC made, not the founding fathers.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, there was no electoral college and no political parties.

Which is something a 5th grader learns in grade school, but Tantaros has no clue about any of it. I am more of a political analyst than she is, and yet Fox and O'Reilly continue to use her for analysis, when usually she is wrong or misinformed about the facts.

Sadly, when you look at her past, Andrea Tantaros and the truth rarely seem to go together in much capacity at all.

O'Reilly Ignoring Alabama Republican Governor Corruption
By: Steve - March 22, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is more bad news about a Republican Governor that Bill O'Reilly is totally ignoring, just as he has ignored the Republican Governor of Michigan and the water crisis story.

Governor Blocks Small Minimum Wage Increase After Giving Staffers $73,405 Raises

The city of Birmingham, Alabama voted last month to give its lowest-paid workers a $2.85 raise, Republican Gov. Robert Bentley signed a bill banning Alabama cities from raising their minimum wages at all.

Now, news has emerged that Bentley recently gave four of his cabinet members $73,405 raises -- an 80 percent increase from the $91,000 salaries they were making previously.

One of the beneficiaries of the raises, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Administrator Mac Gipson, said his previous $91,000 salary wasn't sufficient to attract the best talent from the private sector.

But the author of the bill that gave Bentley the authority to raise cabinet members salaries in the first place says the 80 percent boosts are "outrageous."
"I'm troubled by the amount of raises that I've read about," Sen. Arthur Orr (R) told
The raises went into effect late last year, though news of them just broke this week. While the $73,405 salary increases were the largest, more than a dozen members of Bentley's cabinet and a number of his staff members received raises as well.

Bentley's move has even been criticized by some of his fellow Republicans, including state board of education candidate Jackie Zeigler, who said this:
The Bentley administration says the state is broke. They have denied pay increases for teachers, State employees and retirees. They closed five State parks and cut back others. They closed 31 drivers license offices. They gutted the State Auditor's budget. They took 100 State troopers off the road.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they were giving themselves huge pay raises. Cutting the normal people but adding to their own pay. This needs to stop.
On Tuesday, Alabama Rep. Mack Butler (R) said this:
We just passed an amendment to the general fund budget to take away a large portion of the money that the governor just gave in pay raises to his staff from his budget and provide it to Medicaid.
Meanwhile, late last month, Bentley signed a bill blocking Alabama cities from raising their minimum wages above the federal floor of $7.25 an hour. Republican super majorities in both chambers of the legislature passed the measure after the city of Birmingham raised its minimum wage to $10.10.

Supporters of the legislation argue raising the minimum wage is bad for businesses (even though the evidence on that point is mixed) opponents argue that with the 48th highest poverty rate in the country, it's time for lawmakers to prioritize lifting Alabama workers out of poverty.

And btw folks, this is not the first time Bentley's budgetary choices have come under fire. In December of last year, he diverted funding from the 2010 BP oil spill recovery effort to finance the renovation of a second Governor's mansion on the Gulf Coast.

But O'reilly never said a word about any of it, even though it is the main job of the media to report on Government corruption. O'Reilly ignores it, when Republicans do it, but when Democrats do it, he reports it over and over.

More Bad Donald Trump News Bill O'Reilly Is Ignoring
By: Steve - March 22, 2016 - 9:00am

And this is from the BBC, to be exact.

Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.

However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as "his most likely Democratic contender."

He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

China encountering a "hard landing" or sharp economic slowdown and Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new "cold war" are among the events seen as more dangerous.

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy."

So what does O'Reilly say about this, nothing. Because he did not report on it, he ignored it, as he does with almost all the bad news about his friend Donald Trump. To this day O'Reilly has not said a word about this, but you can bet the farm if it was about a Democrat he would be all over it.

Fox News Idiots Already Caught Lying About Merrick Garland Nomination
By: Steve - March 21, 2016 - 10:00am

Fox Figures Attack Merrick Garland For Speaking Publicly After Being Nominated

Even though Reagan and Bush Nominees Spoke In Public After Being Nominated, Including Scalia, Who The Fox Panel Cited.

Fox's Andrew Napolitano and Stuart Varney accused Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland of publicly "lobbying for the job" by speaking during his nomination announcement, despite precedent of prior Supreme Court nominees chosen by presidents of both parties doing the same.

During the March 16 edition of Fox Business Varney & Co., Varney said he was "surprised to hear Judge Merrick Garland say anything" during the nomination announcement, and accused Garland of sounding "like he was lobbying for the job" while speaking at the White House.

Napolitano added that "It is highly unusual for the nominee, him or herself, to engage in any type of public lobbying and really should be reserved for behind the scenes with the members of the Senate."

Napolitano said that he could not imagine former President Ronald Reagan allowing a Supreme Court nominee to speak at his announcement, saying "A different era, a different president, different morals, different values."

And of course Napolitano is wrong, because there is strong precedent of presidents from both parties, including Reagan, allowing Supreme Court nominees to speak during nomination announcements.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor each spoke during their nominations, while former President George W. Bush's nominees Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts were allowed to do the same.

Reagan, turned the microphone over to Justice Anthony Kennedy and allowed the late Justice Antonin Scalia to take questions from reporters.

Partial transcript:

STUART VARNEY (HOST): You have just heard President Obama introduce his Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland and you heard Judge Merrick Garland himself. Judge Napolitano is with me now. I was surprised to hear Judge Merrick Garland say anything there. Forgive me, but it sounded to me a bit like he was lobbying for the job.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: It did sound like he was lobbying. It sounded like an emotional plea for the propriety of his nomination. Obviously it was something the White House wrote or approved. It is highly unusual for the nominee, him or herself, to engage in any type of public lobbying and really should be reserved for behind the scenes with the members of the Senate.

VARNEY: That was unusual.

NAPOLITANO: Extremely unusual for a sitting judge who's regulated by what we call the canons of judicial ethics about what he or she may say in public and may not say in public. Highly unusual for this. I was quite surprised. We were kidding with each other, could you imagine Ronald Reagan calling Justice Scalia Antonin and saying, "OK, the microphone is yours." A different era, a different president, different morals, different values, but this was most unusual what we just saw.

Top Conservatives Meet To Plot Third-Party Run Against Trump
By: Steve - March 21, 2016 - 9:00am


Three influential leaders of the conservative movement have summoned other top conservatives for a closed-door meeting Thursday in Washington, D.C., to talk about how to stop Donald Trump and, should he become the Republican nominee, how to run a third-party "true conservative" challenger in the fall.

The organizers of the meeting include Bill Wichterman, who was President George W. Bush's liaison to the conservative movement; Bob Fischer, a South Dakota businessman and longtime conservative convener; and Erick Erickson, the outspoken Trump opponent and conservative activist who founded

"Please join other conservative leaders to strategize how to defeat Donald Trump for the Republican nomination," the three wrote in an invitation obtained by POLITICO that recently went out to conservative leaders, "and if he is the Republican nominee for president, to offer a true conservative candidate in the general election."

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, two days after winner-take-all Florida and Ohio vote in what many Republican operatives believe will determine whether Trump is on an unstoppable march to the nomination or is likely to stall out short of the 1,237 delegates he needs.

Donald Trump And His Supporters Are Clueless And Misinformed
By: Steve - March 20, 2016 - 11:00am

And that includes Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein, who keep telling people Trump has a chance to beat Hillary Clinton.

Here are some electoral college facts. You need 270 electoral college votes to be the President. In 2012 Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, everyone at Fox News, and everyone in the Republican party said Romney could beat Obama, and in fact, in the last month or so of the election they all said Romney would win for sure.

They based their analysis on a bunch of rigged and bogus polls that were garbage. They were wrong, and not only did Obama beat Romney, he crushed him. Obama got 332 electoral votes, and Romney only got 206. Now get this, Obama only won 2 more states than Romney, 26 to 24, but he crushed him in the electoral vote.

On the Democratic side the Democrat has won the same 16 states in every Presidential election for 20 years or so. On the Republican side the Republican has won the same 13 states in that time, and the electoral count for those states right now is about 240 for Clinton and 105 for Trump.

That means Clinton only needs to pick up 30 more electoral votes, while Trump has to find 165 electoral votes somewhere. And to be honest, it is not possible, because Trump has made everyone (but a few white people who support him) mad at him for his crazy and racist positions. The blacks, latinos, and women will mostly vote for Clinton, that means Trump only gets the angry and clueless white guy vote, which is not enough to get to 270.

The math just does not add up for Trump. Now some people are saying Trump is bringing out new people to vote and that could make a difference, but that is in the Primary, not a general election where the entire country is voting. He would need to get almost all the white votes in America to beat Clinton, and that is not going to happen.

Obama got 93 percent of African-Americans, 71 percent of Hispanics, and 73 percent of Asians. And Mitt Romney got 61 percent of the white vote, but he still got crushed 332 to 206. And Trump is not going to get hardly any of the Blacks, the Hispanics, or the Asians. Obama got 39 percent of the white vote, and he is black, so Clinton will get much more than that.

Let's say Clinton gets just 40 percent of the white vote, she still wins by a mile. Because Romney got 61 percent and he was not even close to 270. Trump just can not win, that is why the big shots in the Republican party are planning to steal the nomination from Trump at the convention, because they know Trump can not beat her.

So when you see O'Reilly and some of these clueless Trump supporters talking about Trump beating Clinton, think about this, they are biased and wrong. They are ignoring the math and the facts. And one last thing, Trump has the highest negatives of any person who ever ran for President, hell even 30% of the Republican party hate him and say they will not vote for him.

Trump will be lucky to get 200 electoral votes, so Clinton will most likely beat him about 335 to 195, and that is my prediction. Remember this after the election and see how close I was, and remember how close O'Reilly and the so-called experts were.

Insane O'Reilly Blames Protesters For Violence At Trump Events
By: Steve - March 20, 2016 - 10:00am

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): In another development, more than 20 progressive organizations posted a letter on the net saying that Donald Trump is dangerous and inciting hate and violence. One of those groups is MoveOn, who itself incited violence in Chicago by urging people to disrupt the Trump rally last week. Joining us now from New York City, Dana Perino. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, remember that show?

DANA PERINO: A little bit.

O'REILLY: Okay. So MoveOn, I mean, they are responsible for all this Trump craziness last Friday. And then they write this little note, oh, "we condemn Trump." It's like -- are people buying this? What do you think?

PERINO: Well, there is a couple things, like with, in particular, one of the things that they know is that they can rile up their base using Donald Trump as their foil, and of the ways they make money is by exploiting a thing or a person. In this case they chose Donald Trump. And so, has a particular interest because they need to raise some money, so they can keep in business as they say.

O'REILLY: Alright, so you think by that by demonizing Trump and attacking Trump, people who go to that website, send them donations, that's what it is all about for them.


And now a reality check for the loon and friend of Trump Bill O'Reilly. The protesters showed up for a peaceful protest, they were not there to start fights or cause trouble. They were there to protest the racist Donald Trump, because he is an embarrassment to America.

It was Donald Trump who told his supporters to rough up the protesters.

It was Donald Trump who said he wanted to punch someone in the face.

It was Donald Trump who said he wished it was the old days when they could beat up protesters and then carry them out of stretchers.

It was Donald Trump who said if you rough up a protesters he will pay their legal fees.

And on and on, in every case it was Donald Trump who was to blame for the violence at his events. He told his supporters to rough people up, the very same people who were involved in a peaceful protest. Trump says they started fights, but there is no evidence or video showing that.

In every video all you see are Trump supporters starting the trouble with the protesters. Because Trump basically gave them the go-ahead to rough people up, and when they did, some of the protesters fought back.

The protesters only fought back when they were attacked. Which is just more proof that Bill O'Reilly is biased for Trump so much he can not see straight. O'Reilly has no proof of what he says, and yet he said it anyway, even though he claims to only deal in facts.

Where is the proof O'Reilly?

And btw, in the rest of the show Mr. fair and balanced did not have one guest on the entire show to give the counterpoint that Trump is a racist. A real journalist would have one guest from each side and debate it, O'Reilly had two Republicans on who both agreed with him that Trump is not a racist.

Hundreds of people have called Trump a racist, including many Republicans, but O'Reilly did not have any of them on to discuss it. He did a one sided and biased segment on it kissing Trump's butt. Which is not journalism, it's being a partisan hack.

China Newspaper Calls Trump A Racist & An Extremist
By: Steve - March 20, 2016 - 9:00am

And you might say, who cares what China thinks, I would agree, I could care less what China thinks about America or Donald Trump. I publish this to point out how some people in the rest of the world view Trump and America for having such a far-right racist idiot leading the Republican primary for President.

No matter what we think of how other people in the world view the Trump rise to power, it makes all of us look bad to them. Here are a few quotes from the China Newspaper.

Mussolini and Hitler came to power through elections, China's Global Times reminded readers Monday. Now an "abusively racist and extremist" candidate is on the rise in the United States, it says. Maybe democracy isn't such a good idea after all.

China's state-owned Global Times newspaper used Donald Trump's rise to gloat about the fault lines in U.S. society.

From the rise of a "narcissistic and inflammatory candidate" to the violence that surrounded his planned rally in Chicago, the paper said it was shocking this could happen in a country that "boasts one of the most developed and mature democratic election systems" in the world.

Fistfights between supporters of rival parties might be common in developing countries during election season, it wrote, but in the United States?

Trump, it said, has opened a Pandora's box.

The candidate's supporters, it noted, are mostly lower-class whites who lost a lot after the 2008 financial crisis. "The U.S. used to have the largest and most stable middle class in the Western world, but many are going down."

The paper described the emergence of Trump, "big-mouthed" and the "perfect populist" to provoke the public.

"Despite candidates promises, Americans know elections cannot really change their lives. Then, why not support Trump and vent their spleen?"

Finally, then, the paper had this message for the United States.

"The U.S. had better watch itself for not being a source of destructive forces against world peace, more than pointing fingers at other countries for their supposed nationalism and tyranny."

U.S. hypocrisy: It's an argument that was also aired in a 45-minute documentary Sunday on party-controlled China Central Television. The Xinhua news agency said the program revealed the U.S. "double standards on human rights-related issues, whereby the U.S. pokes its nose into other countries internal affairs while leaving many of its own problems unsolved."

Quartz called it part of China's escalating criticism of the United States. Last week, it noted, the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations declared the United States too violent and racist to criticize others on human rights.

Trump Protesters Block Road To Trump Rally
By: Steve - March 19, 2016 - 11:50am

Now this is what I call making America great again.

Anti-Donald Trump protesters blocked an Arizona highway and created a traffic nightmare in an attempt to keep the GOP frontrunner from attending his Saturday rally in Fountain Hills.

The Trump haters parked their cars in the middle of the three-lane road that leads to Fountain park -- where the candidate is scheduled to speak at 2 p.m. EST -- and some protesters even chained themselves to their vehicles to slow down cops efforts to clear the blockade.

"We don't want Donald Trump in Arizona. We don't want his hatred," the lead protester told an NBC News reporter on the scene.

Arial video showed cars backed up for miles behind the mid-road protest.

The Trump-blocking barrier included two pick-up trucks parked lengthwise across the road and three layers of cars behind them. When police arrived to start towing the idle vehicles, some activists strapped themselves to their cars with cables and chains.

Fox Slams Trump For Another Insulting Tweet About Megyn Kelly
By: Steve - March 19, 2016 - 11:30am

Donald Trump again turned his Twitter vitriol toward an old foe this week: Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor and frequent target of his social media attacks. On Friday, the network said it had had enough.

Statement from a FOX News spokesperson:

"Donald Trump's vitriolic attacks against Megyn Kelly and his extreme, sick obsession with her is beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate who wants to occupy the highest office in the land.

Megyn is an exemplary journalist and one of the leading anchors in America -- we're extremely proud of her phenomenal work and continue to fully support her throughout every day of Trump's endless barrage of crude and sexist verbal assaults.

As the mother of three young children, with a successful law career and the second highest rated show in cable news, it's especially deplorable for her to be repeatedly abused just for doing her job."

Now let's see O'Reilly defend this from Trump, somehow I bet he does on Monday when he is back from his 3 day weekend.

O'Reilly Denies Donald Trump Is A Racist Once Again
By: Steve - March 19, 2016 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly said this Thursday night: "I Will Not Brand Donald Trump A Racist"

Not only is he again saying Trump is not a racist and he will not call him one, he is slamming other people that do call Trump a racist, which is almost everyone. It's like that crazy guy that says one thing and a hundred other people tell him he is wrong, and he still says you are all wrong and I am right.

That's O'Reilly, he is not crazy, but he is wrong, and he is defending his friend, but he is also blinded from the truth in that friendship. O'Reilly will never admit Trump is a racist and that he is running a racist campaign, even though he is, and O'Reilly is wrong.

The facts prove it. Let me quote an article in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank, he says Trump is a bigot and a racist and provides evidence it is true, the evidence O'Reilly ignores and will not talk about.

Donald Trump Is A Bigot And A Racist

Let's not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.

Trump has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor ("First they came for the socialists") that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump's hateful broadsides.

It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump's outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you're not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot.

Trump even took out ads in New York newspapers once calling for the death penalty for "criminals of every age" after five black and Latino teens were implicated in the Central Park jogger case. The young men, convicted and imprisoned, were later cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of a serial rapist -- and Trump called their wrongful-conviction settlement a "disgrace."

Since then, Trump led the birther movement challenging President Obama's standing as a natural-born American; used various vulgar expressions to refer to women; spoke of Mexico sending rapists and other criminals across the border; called for rounding up and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants; had high-profile spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets; mocked Asian accents; let stand a charge made in his presence that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are a problem in America; embraced the notion of forcing Muslims to register in a database; falsely claimed thousands of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey; tweeted bogus statistics asserting that most killings of whites are done by blacks; approved of the roughing up of a black demonstrator at one of his events; and publicly mocked the movements of journalist Serge Kovaleski, who has a chronic condition limiting mobility.

Though all Trump supporters surely aren't racists or bigots, even a cursory examination of social media reveals that many are. Those supporting Trump tend to be white, less-educated and middle-aged and older -- those who are anxious and angry because they are losing ground as the American economy changes.

An analysis of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll by Scott Clement found that Trump, who has the support of 14 percent of registered voters overall, does particularly well among white men who are not college-educated (24 percent) and white, non-evangelical Protestants (27 percent), but gets only 3 percent of non-whites and 5 percent of those under 30 years old.

This does not mean Republicans or conservatives generally are bigoted. I wouldn't label any other candidate in the GOP field that way, and Trump, though leading in the polls, lacks the support of most. Thirty-two percent of Republicans supported Trump in the latest Post poll, which means 86 percent of the overall American electorate hasn't embraced him.

Trump's rivals for the nomination are slowly and haltingly finding the courage to call the man what he is. Chris Christie criticized Trump's treatment of Kovaleski. John Kasich, after Neimoller video, issued an ad showing Trump's mockery of Kovaleski's disability and saying Trump isn't worthy of the presidency.

Some Trump defenders (O'Reilly) claim the candidate is not racist but simply careless and undisciplined, as John Hinderaker of the conservative website PowerLine put it. When I called in last week to a radio show Hinderaker hosted, he defended the treatment of the black man at Trump's rally ("he was obviously being disruptive and he was a big burly guy"), Trump's tweet falsely blaming African Americans for most killings of white people ("he just fell for some bad data") and Trump's embrace of a Muslim database ("that was brought up by a reporter").

I argued that the large number of instances over an extended period add up to a pattern of bigotry.

"We'd be at it a long time if we go back through history," the host said.

Exactly. Shouldn't Republicans take that time before they nominate a racist?


Almost everyone outside of the Republican party and some stooges at Fox News think Trump is a bigot and a racist, even Fox News Shepard Smith thinks it is true.

Fox's Shepard Smith Pushes Republican Strategist To Admit Trump Is Using Bigoted Language To Attract Bigots

Smith: "Who Does One Try To Attract When One Uses Bigotry?"

SMITH: Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no. Doug, Doug, Doug. You said he is using bigotry. Who does one try to attract when one uses bigotry in your mind?

HEYE: Well, I think if you look at what's happened at some of these events where one of his supporters walked out and told a protester to go back to Auschwitz, I think that's the kind of language we don't need in the Republican Party or in politics anywhere.

SMITH: You need to go ahead and say whatever it is you're saying. Are you saying that he is using a bigoted campaign to attract closeted bigots or not? Because who else are you looking for when you use bigotry? What other group would you be seeking?

And I could post a hundred more examples of people saying Trump is a bigot and a racist, from Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives, Independents, just about everyone. But O'Reilly will never admit it, because Trump is his friend and he is biased for him, and because O'Reilly is a Republican who never admits other Republicans are racists, even when they are and everyone knows it.

North Carolina Sheriff's Deputies Disciplined Over Trump Rally
By: Steve - March 19, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

(Reuters) - Five North Carolina Sheriff's deputies have been disciplined over their behavior at a rally for Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump where a white supporter sucker punched a black protester, officials said on Wednesday.

The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office said three deputies were demoted and suspended for five days each without pay for their unsatisfactory performance at last week's rally while the two others were suspended for three days.

"The actions of the deputies and their failures to act in situations such as that which occurred during the Trump rally at the Crown Coliseum have never been and will not ever be tolerated under the policies of this office," Sheriff Earl "Moose" Butler said.

At the rally in Fayetteville, John McGraw, a 78-year-old white Trump supporter, was arrested on a misdemeanor assault charge, but not until the next day after he was seen on video punching a 26-year-old black protester in the face and it was posted on social media sites.

Video of the incident recorded by bystanders showed deputies pinning the assaulted protester to the ground, prompting social media criticism on why swift action was taken against him instead of his assailant.

All five of the deputies were admonished for their behavior and have been placed on probationary status for the next 12 months, the Sheriff's Office statement said. Sheriff's officials on Monday decided against criminally charging Trump or his campaign with "inciting a riot" at the rally.

Trump has rejected suggestions that his language was to blame for recent clashes at his rallies, even though multiple videos show he encouraged violence against protesters. Says O'Reilly Lied About Merrick Garland
By: Steve - March 19, 2016 - 9:00am


Bill O'Reilly wrongly says Merrick Garland voted to ban citizens from having guns in DC

On his show March 16, O'Reilly acknowledged that Obama's pick -- Merrick Garland, chief judge of the federal court of appeals for the D.C. circuit-- is "not some crazy left-wing bomb thrower."

"But he voted, so the folks know, in Washington, D.C., to keep guns away from private citizens, and the Supreme Court of course said no, that is unconstitutional," O'Reilly added. "But he voted to keep the guns away. Just that vote, and you must know this, alienates most in the Republican Party, so they never would vote to confirm him."

A few conservative groups and figures have already attacked Garland for his position on guns since his nomination. We're putting O'Reilly's specific claim that Garland voted "to keep guns away from private citizens" on the Truth-O-Meter.

Based on O'Reilly's claim, one might assume that the single dissenting vote in this D.C. Circuit opinion belonged to Garland. However, it was Judge Karen Henderson who dissented, while Judges Laurence Silberman and Thomas Griffith signed the majority opinion.

Garland didn't vote on this case at all.

After the D.C. Circuit handed down its 2007 decision, the city of Washington asked the court to rehear the case en banc, meaning all of the court's judges would reconsider the case, not just the panel of three. The court ended up denying the city's petition, but Garland was among the group of D.C. Circuit judges who was in favor of rehearing the case.

It's not fair to conclude that Garland supported the Washington gun regulations because he wanted to reconsider the case, as he did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. Rehearing a case en banc is generally used when a case goes against precedent or presents a question of significant importance, and that was true of the Heller case.

D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a well-known conservative, joined Garland in voting to reconsider the case. And the Bush administration, though supportive of the notion that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking them to send Heller back to the lower courts for consideration.

"Garland voted for his court to consider the constitutionality of D.C.'s law," Winkler said. "Such a vote does not tell us one way or another how Garland feels about the Second Amendment."

Our ruling

O'Reilly said Merrick Garland "voted, so the folks know, in Washington, D.C., to keep guns away from private citizens."

Garland never heard the case about Washington gun laws from the bench, and so he never voted on it.

He voted in favor of reconsidering the case, but it's impossible to extrapolate from that vote his position on the merits of the case.

We rate O'Reilly's claim False.

David Boaz Says Trump Is Running A Racial Campaign
By: Steve - March 18, 2016 - 11:30am

More evidence of Trump racism for Bill O'Reilly. And who is David Boaz you might ask. He is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank.

A lot of Americans think it would be better to have a businessman than a politician as president, and I sympathize with them. Alas, the only businessmen crazy enough to run for president seem to be, well, crazy. At least Ross Perot kept his craziness confined mostly to private matters, such as the looming disruption of his daughter's wedding.

Donald Trump puts it front and center. And I think serious conservatives and liberals would share this view -- Trump's greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and his promise of one-man rule.

Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign.

Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation, bans on Muslim immigration, shutting down mosques, and building a wall around America. America is an exceptional nation in large part because we've aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.

Equally troubling is his idea of the presidency -- his promise that he's the guy, the man on a white horse, who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people, hire the best people, and fix everything. He doesn't talk about policy or working with Congress. He's effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat.

It's a vision to make the last 16 years of executive abuse of power seem modest. Without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax and single-payer health care, his know-nothing protectionism, or his passionate defense of eminent domain, I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

O'Reilly Lied About Gun Law Vote By Merrick Garland
By: Steve - March 18, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a lying right-wing stooge. Wednesday night he said Garland voted to keep guns away from private citizens. Which is a total lie, because he made no such vote.

Here is what O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: He's not some crazy left-wing bomb thrower. But he voted, so the folks know, in Washington, DC to keep guns away from private citizens, and the Supreme Court of course said no, that is unconstitutional. But he vote to do keep the guns away. Just that vote, and you must know this, alienates most in the Republican Party, so they never would vote to confirm him.
And now the facts. O'Reilly (who claims to never use right-wing talking points or propaganda) got his information from a March 11 post at National Review's Bench Memos legal blog, and the Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino, which is a far-right group.

Severino wrote that a vote Garland cast to re-hear a 2007 case on Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban disproved Garland's reputation as a "moderate," revealing his "very liberal view on gun rights" because he had agreed with Judge David Tatel, "one of the most liberal judges on the court."

She also said that his vote signaled a desire to overturn Justice Scalia's opinion in the Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller, which is current precedent for the constitutional scope of gun restrictions.

The NRA joined with O'Reilly when they responded to Obama's formal nomination announcement on Twitter by promoting JCN's attack on Garland, claiming that Garland was "bad on guns," and "has a 'very liberal view' on gun rights," as well as repeating JCN's baseless suggestion that Garland's record as a judge on the D.C. Circuit indicates that he would overturn the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller.

So the JCN puts out a lie, then the NRA and Bill O'Reilly, and virtually everyone at Fox repeat the lie to attack Judge Garland as a man who voted to keep guns away from private citizens.

FACT: Garland Voted, Along With Three Other Judges, To Rehear A 2007 Case That Had Overturned D.C.'s Handgun Ban.

He voted to rehear the case, not to keep guns away from private citizens. Along with a well known conservative Judge who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, something O'Reilly did not tell you. He voted to rehear the case simply so the full court could rule on it. But he was not one of the 3 Judges who issued the decision to ban guns.

In March 2007, a panel of three judges -- not including Garland -- issued a decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, overturning a lower court case to rule that D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership violated the Second Amendment. After the decision, Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case en banc, a procedure in which the full court can reconsider the case and decide differently. In a 6-4 decision, the court declined to rehear the case en banc.

Well-Known Conservative Judge A. Raymond Randolph Also Voted To Rehear The Case.

The four votes to rehear the Parker case also included one cast by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee to the D.C. Circuit and a well-known conservative. In fact, JCN -- then still operating under the name Judicial Confirmation Network -- promoted a discussion between Randolph and ultra-conservative jurist and rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork months after Randolph joined Garland in voting to rehear Parker.

JCN's "Talking Points" Opposing Garland Allege He Voted "To Uphold D.C.'s Very Restrictive Gun Restrictions."

Shortly after Obama's announcement to nominate Garland, JCN released "topline talking points" outlining its opposition to Garland, claiming that the nominee has "demonstrated a remarkable level of hostility toward the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," including by "voting to uphold D.C.'s very restrictive gun restrictions."

FACT: Garland Did Not Participate In The Original 2007 D.C. Circuit Decision On The Handgun Ban.

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court -- where Garland is chief judge -- issued a ruling in the Parker v. District of Columbia case that challenged the constitutionality of Washington's ban on private handgun ownership. In the 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower court's decision that the D.C. ban was constitutional.

Justice Laurence Silberman wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justice Thomas B. Griffith in finding that D.C.'s gun law violated the Second Amendment. Justice Karen L. Henderson dissented. Garland did not participate in the decision.

Garland is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, but when the court ruled 2 to 1 in the case, Garland was not one of the 3 judges who heard the case. And only when they ruled the wrong way, did he then vote to rehear the case, so they could get it right and correct the 3 judge panel who made the wrong ruling.

O'Reilly used right-wing talking points, from a lying and biased right-wing legal group to attack judge Garland for a vote he never made. And the NRA is also using the same lies to attack judge Garland. So you have O'Reilly and the NRA in bed together with a lying and biased right-wing legal group, who are dishonestly smearing judge Garland for a vote he never made.

Judge Garland only voted to rehear the case, along with a conservative appointed by Bush Sr., after the 3 judge panel made the original 2 to 1 ruling. And btw, O'Reilly left out all the details I told you about, and the worst part is that he never disclosed where he got his information, or who all was using it to attack judge Garland.

The source is dishonest and lying about the facts, and Bill O'Reilly was dishonest to report the lies they put out. He never once mentioned that the source he used is a biased and partisan right-wing group that is known for lying and has changed their name over the years to try and get away from being known as liars.

Proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack that uses dishonest right-wing talking points to attack people the Republicans want to smear, despite the fact that he says he never uses any right-wing talking points for anything.

This very same judge was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court with 72 votes, including 7 Republicans who are still in the Senate, who said he was a good and fair judge then, but only now do they say he is not a good judge. That Court is the 2nd highest Court in America, under the Supreme Court, and Garland is the Chief Justice on the Court.

In fact, in an interview just last week, longtime Republican Senate Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch of Utah called Garland "a fine man," but predicted he was too moderate to get the nomination from Obama. "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election. So, I'm pretty sure he'll name someone the liberal Democratic base wants," Hatch told Newsmax Friday.

Garland is known as a moderate judge who votes with conservatives as much as he does with liberals, so he has no bias. But the right-wing stooges do not want Obama to appoint a Supreme Court judge, no matter who it is, so they are lying about his voting record, and O'Reilly is helping them by spreading their lies.

And btw, the Republicans say if Hillary wins in November they will vote and confirm Garland in a lame duck session. So you know they are corrupt, and only refusing to vote and confirm him now because they hate Obama. And O'Reilly also never reported any of that, because he does not want you to know that information.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Time Article About Killing Jesus Movie
By: Steve - March 18, 2016 - 10:00am

To begin with, O'Reilly used his tip of the day segment at the end of the show to slam a Time reporter for simply telling the truth about the Killing Jesus movie based on the book O'Reilly wrote. That is not a tip, he just used the segment to slam a Time reporter, when the reporter was actually telling the truth.

Let's look at what O'Reilly said, from his very own website:

Tip of the Day

A 'Time' for Media Dishonesty
O'REILLY: "A column in Time magazine claims that the movie version of 'Killing Jesus' was 'critically eviscerated,' when in fact it was highly praised and nominated for an Emmy. As always, be wary of what you read and where you read it"
Now get this, the Time article O'Reilly cited has nothing to do with Killing Jesus, the entire article was about a movie called "The Young Messiah" and had nothing to do with Killing Jesus, here is the actual headline:

Here's Why Making The Young Messiah Was 'Fraught With Peril'

In the 1000 word or so article there are about 15 words in one sentence that mentions the O'Reilly killing Jesus movie. Here is the exact quote:
Son of God, a 2014 release, made $70M worldwide and Killing Jesus, last year's critically eviscerated TV movie based on Bill O'Reilly's book, broke NatGeo viewership records.
The Time article authors name is John Anderson, he said Killing Jesus was critically eviscerated, and it was, but O'Reilly slammed him for it anyway, even though 99.9% of the article had nothing to do with Killing Jesus.

O'Reilly claims Anderson is part of the dishonest media because he lied that it was critically eviscerated, when O'Reilly is wrong, because it was slammed by a lot of critics. Here are just a few examples I found in 2 seconds with a simple Google search. -

'Killing Jesus' Movie Waters Down Christ's Life and Teachings -

I am not sure where to begin with this book. I can't provide a serious review because it is hard for me to believe that he published it with a straight face. This book is horrible on so many levels. A simple read of any undergrad Introduction to the Gospels textbook would demonstrate that O'Reilly doesn't know what he is talking about.

Of all the problems with this book it is his complete lack of understanding about history that is most frustrating. He claims to separate myth from history, but I don't think he knows the difference. He certainly doesn't have a coherent methodology. Not only does he not understand how history writing works (both now and in antiquity), it is obvious that he makes it up as he goes along or he just gets it plain wrong.

Nat Geo's "Killing Jesus" a flawed excursion into serious error

O'Reilly is a news man, but his secularized version of events is not news, it's been done many times before. Jesus referred to his words as the bread of life -- O'Reilly's use of the word allegory to describe much of the bible is a wimpy attempt to turn God's bread into nutrition-less pabulum. Work hard on this point Mr. O'Reilly and maybe your next book could be "Killing Allegory."

Here is a partial list of 23 flaws, dramatic nonsense and theological pitfalls in Killing Jesus, In truth there were many more, but it is these points that must not be dismissed without further scrutiny.

I will not list all 23, but they found 23, and they said there were even more than 23 flaws in the movie. They actually list all 23 flaws in the article.

Five things Bill O'Reilly flubs in 'Killing Jesus'

You get the picture, I could list more, there are a ton of negative reviews of the movie and the book. Go look it up for yourself, you can read bad reviews for hours, there are very many.

But according to O'Reilly John Anderson at Time Magazine is dishonest for saying Killing Jesus was critically eviscerated, even though it was, by many different sources, in the media and on religious websites and blogs.

And O'Reilly dishonestly used his tip of the day segment to slam the guy, when he was right. Based on 15 words in one sentence (of a 1000 word article) that was not even about O'Reilly or his Killing Jesus movie.

So O'Reilly was being dishonest, as he called out another journalist for being dishonest, when that other journalist was actually telling the truth. Which is what O'Reilly does, when anyone tells the truth about O'Reilly, one of his books, or one of his movies. The only dishonest person in this whole story is Bill O'Reilly.

Scarborough Speculates That Trump Planned Chicago Rally Cancellation
By: Steve - March 18, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is something O'Reilly and the rest of the media is not telling you, and most of them knew this was probably true, and yet they failed to report it, except for Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, who also said Trump had to know it would be trouble to have that rally in Chicago where he did.

Local Chicago reporters were on TV saying it was ridiculous for Trump to have a rally there, saying no Republican had ever had a rally in that area before.

Here is a partial transcript:

JOHN HEILEMANN (HOST): Joe you wrote a column in the Washington Post and although everybody who's smart that I know reads the Washington Post and follows you relentlessly, there may be some people in our audience who did not read that column which made a pretty provocative charge about what happened on Friday night at that Trump rally in Chicago. Just outline your theory of the case there and whether you think in the end what happened Friday night will hurt Trump or help Trump today, in terms of the vote going on in these five states.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well first of all it was a made-for-tv event. People comparing it to Chicago 1968 have absolutely no idea what they were watching. Anybody that turned on their television set after getting breaking news across their phone that Donald Trump's campaign rally had been canceled out of fear of violence actually walked just right into the trap, walked right into what Donald Trump wanted them to walk into, that was a made-for-tv protest.

They obviously set up (as Bill Daly said they knew exactly what they were doing when they set the rally up) in the college where they set it up. The college was 25% Hispanic, 25% Asian, 8% black. It was in a town that had not elected a Republican mayor since 1931. And Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on. They allowed the protesters to stream in. So much so that they had an excuse to cancel it.

And when they cancelled the event, well Donald Trump got to go on all the networks for the next three to four hours and complain about how his First Amendment rights have been violated, despite the fact he was getting far more airplay than he would've ever gotten from that one speech. I think it shows once again how well Donald Trump knows, how cynically Donald Trump knows how to play the media.

So does it help, does it hurt? It helps him tonight, it hurts him in the long run. Almost everything that Donald Trump has done over the last three weeks helps him in the short run, because he is being a political day trader but hurts him in the Fall election. And that's the reason why you were seeing general election matchups between Hillary Clinton start to show separation.

Now we've got a long way to go, if Donald Trump locks down the nomination and again stops the political daytrading, stops playing to the lowest common denominator you will see those numbers start to tighten up. But he's got a ways to go, because for every angry disaffected voter that he picks up with events like Chicago he loses three or four more moderate Republican voters in the suburbs and the numbers just don't add up for him.


And for the record, if the Republicans run Trump against Hillary he will lose badly. To beat her he would have to win blacks, latinos, asians, and women. And he will not win any of those, hell 30% the people in his own party will probably not vote for him, so how is he going to win the rest of the people. There are not enough white votes for Trump to win.

The vote for President is about the 270 electoral college votes, and the Democrats always win 16 states, they have 242 electoral votes in those 16 states, while the Republicans always win 13 states, in those 13 states the Republicans have 103 electoral votes. That means Hillary will start with 242, so she only needs 28 more to win, Trump will need 167 more to win. And the whites only vote will not get him to 270, so he can not win.

For Trump to win he would need roughly 30% to 40% of the blacks, women, latinos, and other minorities to get to 270, and that is never going to happen. Trump has record high negative ratings with every group but one, white people. So he can not beat Hillary, and that is a fact.

And btw, election experts say that to win the White House you need 40% of the Latino vote, and Latinos hate Trump, he has an 85% negative rating with them, Romney only got 27% of the Latino vote, and he was a moderate, so Trump will not even get that. Hillary is going to kill Trump with Latinos, and whether you like it or not, she will be the next President.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring The Flint Michigan Water Crisis Story
By: Steve - March 17, 2016 - 11:30am

Today the sitting Republican Governor of Michigan spoke to Congress at a hearing on the water crisis, and Bill O'Reilly has still not said one word about this entire story, not a word. I have seen his show preview for Thursday night and he will not say anything about it tonight either. But he does have time for an entire waste of time Jesse Watters segment where he goes to a heavy metal concert to ask people how they plan to vote.

Bill O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist, while at the same time totally ignoring the Flint Michigan water crisis, simply because the Governor is a Republican. This is not journalism, it's 100% bias by ignoring the story. It's the very same thing O'Reilly slams other journalists for doing, he slams the so-called liberal media when they ignore negative stories about Democrats, and yet, he is doing the exact same thing for Republicans.

And as far as I can tell, Bill O'Reilly is the only so-called journalist on TV that has not reported this story. Most of Fox has ignored a lot of it, but they have reported on it, O'Reilly is the only one who has not said one word about the story, ever. And how he calls himself a journalist after this is beyond me, he even ignores it when the Governor is asked to resign, and after he is called in to speak to Congress.

Here is the story from today:

For nearly 18 months, Michigan officials dismissed Flint residents complaints that their water looked and tasted bad, while also ignoring red flags raised by state officials. Snyder said he didn't figure it out until October, when the state finally told Flint residents not to drink from their taps because the lead levels in Flint kids blood had shot up.

Even though we know he is lying, because emails and memos from state employees show that Snyder knew, they even started using bottled water in state run offices, because they knew the water was bad, Snyder is clearly lying and should resign now.

Small children exposed to lead (even in small amounts) can suffer permanent brain damage and behavioral problems.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's top Democrat, excoriated the governor for his role in the crisis.

"There will now be an entire generation of children who suffer from brain damage, learning disabilities and many other horrible effects of lead poisoning that were inflicted on them by Governor Synder's administration," Cummings said. "Gov. Snyder's administration caused this horrific disaster and poisoned the children of Flint."

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) told Snyder he was "dripping with guilt" and that he should resign.

Federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations require public water systems to add chemicals that reduce the corrosiveness of drinking water, since corrosive water can leach lead from lead pipes -- but the state misread the regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency, the law's top enforcer, said last fall that the requirements were ambiguous.

Snyder's partner at the witness table was EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, whose testimony heaped almost all the blame for Flint on Snyder.

"While EPA did not cause the lead problem, in hindsight, we should not have been so trusting of the state for so long when they provided us with overly simplistic assurances of technical compliance rather than substantive responses to our growing concerns," McCarthy said.

McCarthy's testimony drew some skepticism from both Republicans and Democrats on the oversight committee. At a Tuesday hearing featuring an EPA official who resigned amid Flint fallout, lawmakers criticized the agency for failing to act on warnings from one of its own scientists that Flint's water was unsafe.

Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) repeated that criticism on Thursday and then some.

"If you're going to do the courageous thing, you, too, should step down," he told McCarthy.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) mocked Republicans for saying the EPA should have been more aggressive in Michigan, since many of them often lament agency interference on other issues.

"Republicans have been absolutely slamming the EPA for overreaching at every possible turn," Clay said. "Now they criticize the EPA for not doing more when Gov. Snyder fell down on the job."

In calling out Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, Snyder is aligning himself with outside experts who last year fought his government to expose the dangerous lead levels in Flint's water, including Flint pediatrician Mona Hannah-Attisha and Virginia Tech corrosion expert Marc Edwards. Both have called for federal regulations to change so that public water systems act more aggressively to replace lead pipes, which currently carry water to millions of homes across America.

In testimony before the committee on Tuesday, Edwards said the EPA should apologize for its role in Flint so the agency can be "worthy of the public trust and its noble mission."

Trump Says His Top Foreign Policy Advisor Is Trump
By: Steve - March 17, 2016 - 11:00am

And this man is about to be the Republican party nominee for President of The United States of America? God help us all, he is a clown and a fool, who should not even be elected dog catcher, let alone President.

Here is what the moron said on Wednesday, it's priceless:

Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, "I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things."

"I know what I'm doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I'll tell you who the people are," Trump said. "But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff."

The New York real estate mogul will not name his foreign policy team, despite promising in early February to release a list of his advisers in "about two weeks." And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about this either, because Trump is his friend and he does not call him out on stuff like this.

Cokie Roberts Says GOP To Blame For The Rise Of Donald Trump
By: Steve - March 17, 2016 - 10:00am

Partial Transcript:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): But where does that leave him, Cokie Roberts, he's behind right now -- If Marco Rubio wins Florida, John Kasich wins Ohio, neither one of them can get a majority of delegates --

COKIE ROBERTS: Then they do head to the convention, that's what happens. If they start winning winner-take-all primaries, then we start heading to the convention. And Glenn Beck was very interesting about that because the truth is, if Donald Trump has a vast number of delegates, and the Republican Party tries to find some way to take it away from him, there will be civil war.

And you know, the truth is, they have only themselves to thank for this. Forget their policies. That's one whole set of things. But the fact is is that Donald Trump was awful about Mexicans, awful about Muslims, awful about women, awful about the disabled, and they just kept their mouths shut. It took the Ku Klux Klan to get the Republican leadership to start to denounce Donald Trump.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Trump Media Blacklist
By: Steve - March 17, 2016 - 9:00am

When President Obama did not call on reporters from Fox at his speeches, O'Reilly flipped out and lost his mind. Saying it was wrong and unfair to not call on a news source because he does not like what they say about him.

And now we have O'Reilly's good friend Donald Trump with a media blacklist and O'Reilly says nothing. Trump does not talk to some reporters and or people that work for news sources he does not like, simply because they report all the news about him, not just what he wants them to report.

Here is a list of the media Trump will not talk to:

MotherJones, NRO, BuzzFeed, HuffingtonPost, ThisIsFusion.

Good Job Republicans
By: Steve - March 16, 2016 - 11:30am

By making Donald Trump your Presidential nominee you have just put Hillary Clinton into the White House. So when you have a Democratic President for at least another 4 years do not cry about it, because it is your own fault for putting a lying clown like Trump in there to run against Hillary.

Donald Trump is a racist clown, and you fools just made him your nominee, you are a joke and your party is a joke. You are not only the laughing stock of America, you are the laughing stock to the world. The whole world is laughing at you for voting for Trump, and you deserve what you get, a racist old right-wing loser fool as a nominee.

And btw, the mainstream and more moderate Republicans even agree with me, they also think Trump is a clown and they are ashamed he is their nominee. That is why they are planning to steal the nomination away from him at the RNC convention in July. The heads of your own party are ashamed of Trump, and they know the people who voted for him are fools, they just do not want to say it in public.

The Republicans are also ridiculous about the Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, they keep saying they will not vote on him, or even meet with him because we should not have a new justice in the final year of a President, and that the people should decide who the next President picks to be on the Supreme Court.

Earth to Republican idiots, the people did decide, when they re-elected President Obama. The people voted to re-elect Obama knowing that he might pick a Supreme Court Justice, so they already decided. It makes no sense to say the people should decide, but only next year, when they already decided this year.

O'Reilly Calls Protesters Fascists After Saying It Was Wrong
By: Steve - March 16, 2016 - 11:00am

Just 5 days ago on 3-9-16 O'Reilly said that calling Trump racist and fascist is wrong, and that it is designed to stop freedom of expression and stifle debate. He also said calling people fascist is a distraction from the real issues.

Then of course last night O'Reilly said Trump protesters are fascists. He said that on 3-14-16. So it only took the king of hypocrisy and double standards 5 days to break his own rules and call people fascists.

I guess he is getting so senile he can not even remember what he said 5 days ago, good job O'Reilly.

Krauthammer Slams O'Reilly For His Lame Defense Of Donald Trump
By: Steve - March 16, 2016 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is so biased for his friend Donald Trump it's laughable. It's so bad even the Republican neo-con Charles Krauthammer from Fox News is calling him out for it. And what was really funny was O'Reilly saying he was just trying to be fair and balanced about it, please, are you kidding me?

If a Democrat was doing what Trump is doing with Republicans protesting him, O'Reilly would go crazy and slam the Democrat for promoting violence. But when his friend Donald Trump does it, he not only does not slam him for it, he defends it.

Charles Krauthammer slammed Bill O'Reilly for failing to take Donald Trump to task for the role his incendiary language has played in the violence at his rallies.

Responding to O'Reilly's Talking Point segment, in which the host blamed protesters and let Trump off the hook for the disturbances at his events, Krauthammer accused O'Reilly of downplaying the role Trump had played in normalizing and encouraging violence.

Krauthammer said this: "Donald Trump is running for the presidency and he says about a protester that in the old days we would have carried him out on a stretcher. He also said about another protester that he'd like to punch him in the face. Trump is responsible for not condemning another guy who sucker-punched a protester."

Specifically, he pointed to Trump's stated intention to the pay the legal fees of a man who sucker-punched a protester and enthused, "Next time we may have to kill him."

"Are you letting Trump off the hook on this?" Krauthammer demanded.

"I'm not, I've said he has to readjust his rhetoric," O'Reilly responded.

"Come on Bill! 'Readjust the rhetoric'? What kind of weaselly words are those? 'Readjust the rhetoric'?"

"All right," O'Reilly said. "I'm trying to deal with this in a fair and balanced way."

Then O'Reilly said this: "Trump speaks in an emotional manner and he doesn't have a filter. He doesn't think sometimes before he speaks, he doesn't understand that his words can carry threats."

Krauthammer continued by charging that O'Reilly's evasive defense of Trump was not enough to whitewash the candidate's provocative language and his failure to condemn the violent acts of his supporters.

Now ask yourself this, if Bernie Sanders was doing what Trump is doing, telling supporters to rough people up and if they do he will pay their legal fees, do you think O'Reilly would defend Sanders?

Hell no he would not, he would slam Sanders and say he is a danger to the country and call for him to stop promoting violence. But when Trump does it O'Reilly does not slam him, he defends it, which is a joke and the opposite of being fair and balanced. O'Reilly has his head so far up Trump's rear end he can not see straight.

Brazile Says Trump Is Running A Right-Wing Radio Campaign
By: Steve - March 16, 2016 - 9:00am

Partial Transcript:

DONNA BRAZILE: Donald Trump is amplifying everything that we've heard on talk radio for the last eight years, Matt, you know that. There's not one AM channel, whether I'm home in the South or riding up into the Northeast, they've been saying this kind of dog whistle, you know, everybody is the problem and people have not taken responsibility.

I denounce Donald Trump for not denouncing the kind of vitriol, the kind of violence that he has perpetrated with his angry rhetoric. And he knows exactly what he's doing. This is not the Donald Trump who denounced David Duke in 1991. This is a guy who is now soaking up this hate and he's spilling it back out.

Note To Right-Wing Idiots: Protesters Have Free Speech Rights Too
By: Steve - March 15, 2016 - 10:00am

No First Amendment rights were trampled on in Chicago. So Donald Trump, and anyone else who says his free speech rights were shut down (Megyn Kelly) are wrong for thinking supporters had their freedom of speech rights violated because his Chicago rally was canceled by protesters. Because it was Trump who decided to cancel, the police said they had control of it and did not tell him to cancel.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of America. It's something people cling to as a basic right of existence, except when they're trying to silence those who disagree with them. But the notion the free speech rights of Trump supporters were infringed upon because of the protesters outside is laughable and simply not true. The First Amendment says so:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section One of the 14th Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, but says nothing about an unruly mob trying to protest outside a political event. And the Constitution is clear: the government can't stop events.

But this doesn't mean the anti-Trump protesters are free and clear to simply barge into any event or home they see fit. Michigan Congressman Justin Amash points out how protesters do face consequences for hijacking rallies, especially if they’re private events.

Protesters are more than welcome to yell and scream until they commit a crime. Simply protesting outside an event, and forcing its cancelation, is not a violation of free speech. It's simply using the First Amendment to protest against someone people don't agree with.

It's like the Trump supporter deciding to throw up the Nazi salute to counter-protest the anti-Trump supporters: completely constitutional and not a violation of the First Amendment. It also means Trump can send supporters to try to shut down the next Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton rally, even if they might face charges of trespassing or assault if they attack someone.

But for him to suggest otherwise is ludicrous and shows he either a) hasn't read the Constitution or b) doesn't care.

There really needs to be a greater understanding of what "freedom of speech" means and what constitutes a violation of it. The government ca not shut down a public protest or event. A large gathering of people outside an event can, as long as they aren't throwing punches or hurling rocks or whatever.

If they go inside, they can be removed by security and maybe rally attendees as long as no violence happens. To suggest a counter-protest somehow violates freedom of speech shows a lack of understanding of what free speech is or just willful ignorance of what it is.

Those who yell, "Free Speech! Free Speech!" need to spend more time examining and understanding what the 1st amendment actually means before claiming their rights have been violated.

The More Republicans Lie The More Republicans Like Them
By: Steve - March 15, 2016 - 9:00am

This is hard to believe, but it is 100 percent true. The more Republicans who are running for office lie, the more the Republican voters like them.

It's not exactly a secret that the Republican party is built on lies, misinformation and propaganda. This is the party that puts out garbage like "guns don't kill people, people do" and that the best way for the middle class to grow is to give the rich massive tax cuts. While the GOP is considered a political party, I view it more like a religious cult.

I have said that long before Trump's rise to the top of the Republican party that the more a Republican lies, the more popular they are conservative voters. The truth is, most conservatives could care less about facts. What they want is someone who's going to tell them what they want to hear - whether or not what they're being told is actually true.

You have probably heard of the non-partisan fact checking site Politifact. It's a website that rates various comments by six categories: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.

So I went to the scorecards for all four Republican presidential candidates to calculate how honest or dishonest they are. I combined the ratings for True/Mostly True to calculate how honest a candidate is.

Then I take the Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire statements and combine those three to come up with dishonest.

Ranking from last to first, this is what I found:

4. John Kasich:

Honest: 50%
Dishonest: 32%

3. Marco Rubio:

Honest: 36%
Dishonest: 42%

2. Ted Cruz:

Honest: 21%
Dishonest: 65%

1. Donald Trump:
Honest: 7%
Dishonest: 77%

Now what's really funny is Trump calls Cruz a liar, when he is a bigger liar than Cruz is, and the stats prove it. And by far, Donald Trump is only honest 7% of the time, which is unreal, and most likely the most dishonest person to ever run for President.

The order each candidate ranks by the number of delegates and states they have won is a direct reflection to how dishonest each candidate is.

Trump And Coulter Agree That Fox News & Ted Cruz Are Traitors
By: Steve - March 14, 2016 - 11:00am

Republican front-runner Donald Trump posted on Facebook that he agrees with Ann Coulter's accusation that Fox News and Ted Cruz are "American traitors." On March 12, Coulter wrote on Twitter that "Fox News & Cruz are American traitors, in league with the liberal establishment. Silent majority must face fire from a unified oligarchy." Coulter is a regular guest on Fox News and has been backing Trump for president.
Ann Coulter - @AnnCoulter

Fox News & Cruz are American traitors, in league with the liberal establishment. Silent majority must face fire from a unified oligarchy.

2:16 AM - 12 Mar 2016
On his Facebook account today, Trump linked to a post about Coulter's tweet and responded, "True."

Stuart Stevens Says Trump Is Running As George Wallace
By: Steve - March 14, 2016 - 10:00am

And he is right, Wallace even used the same slogan Trump is, make America great again, here is a partial transcript:

JIM ACOSTA (HOST): Stuart, let me start with you, because David Gergen is here, and says he thinks this is the type of thing that could derail the Trump campaign or hurt it. But, you could also make the counter argument, that Donald Trump is running in a Republican primary. We just heard from a Trump supporter right there, who feels as if he was denied the right to hear the candidate he is supporting speak.

And you could see Donald Trump saying, you know, this just proves what I've been saying, which is you need a strong leader who can speak the truth, you know, and tell people when they've gone too far. What's your take on this? Could this counter-intuitively help Donald Trump tonight?

STUART STEVENS: Look, this isn't complicated. Donald Trump is running as George Wallace, but he is really almost doing with it more deliberateness than George Wallace did. Wallace at least pretended at times to be civil.

What's remarkable about what Donald Trump is doing is, he is sort of exalting in this thugocracy, he is out there red faced, and shouting, and playing the thug and encouraging people to do that. He is inciting violence.

Now look, there's just -- can you win a Republican primary this way? I sure hope not, I hope that he's defeated, but I know you can't win a general election this way. There's not enough white people in America who are angry at those who aren't white, to win an election this way.

It is an absolute train to nowhere, it's incredibly disruptive for the party, it's incredibly destructive for the country. And it just really -- he has no idea what he's playing with.

Republicans Once Again Prove Just How Stupid They Are
By: Steve - March 14, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course you never hear a word about any stuff like this from O'Reilly, because he is a Republican and he does not want to make them look bad.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee put out a tweet slamming a Democratic Congresswoman for not standing for some veterans, they basically implied she is an un-American un-Patriotic military hating liberal, for not standing.

But there are a couple big problems with that, she is a veteran herself and a double amputee who lost both her legs while serving in the U.S. Army.

So what did the NRSC do after the media reported the story, they deleted the tweet of course, and hope that everyone will forget about it.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee deleted a tweet Tuesday afternoon attacking Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), a double amputee, for "not standing up for our veterans."

A slew of Twitter users pointed out the poor wording of the tweet, which was quickly deleted. Duckworth is a U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq War who lost both of her legs in combat and the first disabled woman elected to the House.

Asked for comment, an NRSC spokeswoman provided TPM a statement criticizing the media for covering the tweet.

"It would be great if reporters would pay as much attention to a deleted tweet as they should to Tammy Duckworth being sued by VA whistleblowers for ignoring claims of mistreatment and corruption," the statement said.

It would also be great if the Republican idiots in America would respect all veterans, not just the Republican veterans. Can you imagine what Fox and O'Reilly would do if the Democratic National Senate Committee said that to a Republican veteran who is a double amputee, all hell would break loose and they would call for them to all be kicked out of office.

Even Chris Wallace At Fox Admits Trump Condoned Violence
By: Steve - March 13, 2016 - 10:00am

Remember this, Trump has told his supporters to rough people up at his rallies, he even said if they get arrested he will pay their legal fees, and then after one of them did in Carolina Trump did not pay his bail or his legal fess, so he even lied about that. Trump is lying, he even says that nobody has been hurt at his rallies, which is just laughable.

Here is a partial transcript of what Chris Wallace at Fox said to Trump:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Even before you had to cancel your rally in Chicago on Friday, there had been growing violence at some of your rallies around the country. And some of the rivals, some of your rivals in the Republican race say you have contributed to this with your rhetoric. Question, sir, do you take any responsibility for the violence at your rallies?

DONALD TRUMP: First of all, I disagree totally, Chris, with what you said. I have by far the biggest crowds, twenty-five, thirty thousand people. Last week we had in Alabama thirty-five thousand people. And out of that, we'll have some disrupters, sometimes put there by other people. But we'll have some protesters, and nobody's been hurt at all.

And as big as these rallies are, nobody's ever been hurt. We talk and we try and be good and I will tell you, some of the protesters are very rough and they're bad dudes, and they swing and they punch, and nobody ever talks about that in the media.

And if other people including the police because it's usually the police that handle it, if they get a little bit rough because they have no choice, but we have had nobody hurt. And when you think about it, when I have twenty-five thousand and twenty thousand people very routinely, by far the biggest, and we have some protesters stand up, who do you know that's been hurt over the last number of months? Nobody. Nobody's been hurt --

WALLACE: Sir, let's take one example. First of all, we've been running video that shows a number of punches being thrown. I don't know that people have ended up being hospitalized. But let's take one example on. Wednesday in North Carolina, a protester named Rakim Jones was being peacefully escorted from the event, not saying he didn't do something provocative. Yes, you can see he flips off a crowd, but then a man in the crowd elbows him in the face, knocks him to the ground. And here's what the man says afterwards:

JOHN MCGRAW: Yes, he deserved it, the next time we see him, we might have to kill him.

WALLACE: Mr. Trump, does that have any place in America?

TRUMP: No, it doesn't, and it's a shame that it happened. And I feel badly for everybody concerned and we don't condone violence. But the kid did, from what I hear, stick up a certain finger right in everybody's face. And this man has had enough, because I'll tell you what, people in this country are very angry. They're angry at incompetent politicians, they're angry at losing their jobs, not having a pay increase for twelve years and more effectively, everything's, this country is not, we can't beat ISIS.

Our military is going to hell. You look at what's going on with the vets, they're treated horribly, they're treated worse than illegal immigrants. We have a big portion of this country that's fed up. You look at the rust belt and other areas of our country where our jobs are being taken. They're all being moved down to Mexico and other locations. They're being moved out of the United States. We have a president that doesn't have a clue. He doesn't know what's going on. And the people of this country are angry. They're not angry people, but they're angry now.

WALLACE: But you say and you just said again, you don't condone the violence. But, sir, the record is clear. And we're going to put up some tapes. You have condoned violence in rally after rally. Again, take a look.

WALLACE: That sure sounds like condoning violence.

Note To Bill O'Reilly: You Are A Lying Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - March 13, 2016 - 10:00am

O'Reilly says Obama is to blame for the rise of Donald Trump, really?

Here is a reality check for Bill O'Reilly and all the other right-wing loons who are saying Obama is to blame for Trump.

Republicans watching in dismay as Donald Trump continues to lead their presidential primary contest have almost given up trying to come up with a plan to stop him, with the spreading realization that he'll rise or fall and there's little they can do to affect that outcome. But if you can't change things, at least you can explain them, which leads to the pressing question: Whose fault is this?

Donald Trump is the culmination of the last seven years of Republican politics, or maybe even the last 50 years. Faced with an angry Tea Party base, the party's leadership encouraged that anger, yet couldn't deliver on any of the substantive promises they made.

They told their voters to hate Washington, despise Barack Obama, and fear immigrants, and this is what they got. Go even farther back and you can find Trump's roots in the "Southern Strategy" that worked so well for so long, where Republicans fed working-class whites a diet of racial resentment to get them to sign on with an agenda that served the interests of the wealthy.

As you might imagine, this story is not particularly appealing to O'Reilly and his conservative friends. So they have a different answer, one which is now gaining increasing currency on the right. Who's to blame for Donald Trump? Why the same man who's to blame for everything that goes wrong in America: Barack Obama.

If Trump gets the nomination, Bill O'Reilly tells his viewers, "he should send Barack Obama a very nice gift for making that possible."

You see, Obama's unwillingness to keep Americans safe from terrorism and the fact that "he continues to allow people to illegally enter America with impunity" has filled Americans with so much rage that they have turned to the candidate most willing to share it.

The brainiacs at Fox & Friends agreed that it's only because Obama clearly doesn't care about America that "when Donald Trump comes out with something that seems extreme, then people say, 'Okay, at least I can say he's looking out for you.'"

This is a familiar story, when confronted with their own excesses, conservatives cry, "Obama made us be this way!"

For instance, Bill O'Reilly and most conservatives will tell you that Obama is the most divisive president in American history, ruthlessly pitting Americans against each other for political gain.

Of course, when you look at the evidence they offer for this claim, the best they can come up with is standard politics. He says that his opponents are wrong about policy matters! He sometimes even questions their motives, like saying they just want tax cuts for the rich!

It's true that in many ways the nation is more divided since Obama became president, but blaming him for that is a little like blaming you for rising rates of burglary because someone broke into your house.

We're talking about a president whose opponents regularly call him a secret Muslim communist who is literally trying to destroy America. You can't listen to conservative talk radio for 10 minutes without hearing that Obama wants to bring the country to its knees as part of some black nationalist plan to punish innocent white people for sins they never committed.

The man had to show his birth certificate to prove to his opponents that he's actually an American. But he's the one who's divisive?

As John McEnroe would say, "You Can Not Be Serious."

If Trump's success is a reaction to Barack Obama, it's only insofar as he's an exaggerated version of the way all Republicans have felt, spoken, and acted toward this president over his entire presidency. Trump's voters didn't wake up a month or two ago and decide that they're nativists attracted to someone offering easy answers to complex problems.

They're exactly the voters that the Republican Party has been cultivating, full of fear and anger and contempt. It's just that the party itself was incapable of offering them a compelling embodiment of those feelings, so they turned to an outsider.

And now, after tiptoeing around Trump for months lest they upset those voters, Republicans have finally said that Trump is going too far in his xenophobia and bigotry. If their protestations are too little and too late, they can't pin the blame on Barack Obama.

They sowed this poisonous field, and the Trump candidacy is what grew out of it. If it means they lose the White House again because of it, whether Trump is the nominee or not, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Rachel Maddow: Impossible To Call Violence At Trump Events An Accident
By: Steve - March 13, 2016 - 9:00am

RACHEL MADDOW (HOST): This is a classic strong man political tactic that we are used to seeing in other countries but not our own. Certainly not in the last 50 years or so, in which political events are generated to bring violence at the edges into the center.

So that violence at these events, which may start organically, is in effect spot lit and encouraged to the point where it becomes something that is legitimately out of control of anyone. And then the spectacle of political violence is itself seen as something that is a problem that needs to be solved by this strongman character who incited the initial event in the first place.

It's political science in way. It's not something that we're used to seeing in American politics. But trying to gin up political violence for its electoral utility is inarguably what we are seeing here. I know the Trump campaign will not say that is what they're doing.

But when you look at the way that Mr. Trump has been talking about the organic existence of both protesters against him and violence toward those protesters at his event, when you look at the way that he has encouraged it in an escalating way leading to this inevitable event tonight in Chicago, I think that it is impossible to say that this is an accident.

Got Some New Hate Mail & Boy Is It Good
By: Steve - March 12, 2016 - 11:30am

From Shawn, for privacy reasons I will not publish his e-mail address, and I did come back at him with some harsh language, sorry, not! As his idol Donald Trump would say, you hit me I hit back.

Full disclosure, so I am a 40 year old Jewish dude from NJ, I am on disability need corrective serious scoliosis surgery and can't work currently. I don't start with that for pity or to hear some wise ass jokes from you. Your resentment resides elsewhere.. I was going to ask you what political label Bill O'Reilly really is as you either know or speculate.. As I am writing I am struck by your mission statement and how it is very close to what you said Bill O'Reilly claims to be about. I promise I ain't a dick but it is odd. OK so nuff said on your page 1.. You don't want to move on and fill the fuck him branch of your life with other things, good positive stuff. I was not trying to get to your page, write to you, or get further sickened tonight. See, I told you 4 or 5 items about myself and my life from the jump. I feel left out and will call it true.. YOU SAY THIS

It's not only insane, it ridiculous. The rise of Donald Trump is because there is a far-right racist wing of the Republican party that loves a racist like Trump. They are old white Republicans, mostly from the south, who love the racist talk from Trump. The other part of the Republican party that loves Trump are the people who hate the Republicans in Congress so they vote for Trump because he is an outsider.

AND THIS WHICH IS ODD BECAUSE AGAIN YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHICH IS BEING RACIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, AND WOW DUDE EVEN GEOGRAPHICALLY STEROTYPICALLY JUST WRONG and that makes you a Bigot, anti semetic, small and ignant yea boy you are that and more of which you don't like. I am disabled. I am a Trump supporter and I promise you, I did not intend for the length of this email nor the whatever. I propose that you should get on with your destiny, O'Reilly is not worth the poison being resentful grows within a person. Plus let's be honest with ourselves, everything that you said a Trump Supporter is I am not any of them. Steve, why do you think that it is possible for the supporters of a leading candidate for President to be all of anything, old, white, dirty, rich, poor that is just ignorance, small minded and then to say that I am a Obama hater because he has dark skin or black parents. Well you get the picture. I would love to get a reply from you, talking about paranoia, or how you can make such wide ranging very limited but entirely incorrect statements that reek of hypocrisy, that whole glass houses thing.

A lot of those same Republicans also hate Obama simply because he is black, and that is not his fault either. He can not control if someone hates him because of his skin color. To blame Trump on Obama is nonsense, and it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. Trump is doing good with a group of Republicans because he is a racist and a lot of them like that, and because he was a birther.

Did Obama ask you to stand up for him? Anybody give you the ideas you have, I can't begin to imagine how you can say Trump guys all are this and they hate Obama because he is.. This.. You're wrong and maybe even wrong about a lot more than this in your life. You have my email. I hope you don't come back to me with harsh language.

Peace, Shawn

Sean Hannity Said He Has Not Seen Any Violence At Trump Rallies
By: Steve - March 12, 2016 - 11:00am

Which is just laughable, because just Wednesday a 78 year old white man at a Trump rally sucker punched a black man while police were escorting him out of the building. The man was even arrested the next day and charged with assault, with a $2.500 bond, after the video went public, that Trump has not paid for as he said he would.

Here is what the lying Hannity said:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): 2016 GOP front-runner Donald Trump canceled a campaign rally in Chicago earlier tonight amid security concerns. Now this after violent agitators hijacked what was to be a peaceful campaign rally.

We have statements that actually prove this fact -- and we've been watching our own coverage here on Fox -- and some people with Bernie Sanders, put out a statement that Mr. Trump, Republican leaders who support him, his hate-filled rhetoric should be put on notice after tonight's events.

They actually said that. That these protests are a direct result of violence that occur at Trump rallies. Well, I don't see any violence at Trump rallies.

Megyn Kelly Wrong That Trump's Free Speech Rights Were Shut Down
By: Steve - March 12, 2016 - 10:00am

She claims Donald Trump's free speech rights were shut down in Chicago, she said this:
MEGYN KELLY (HOST): You can bet we'll hear from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who may have a thing or two to say. They've already -- President Obama has already gone after Donald Trump. In fact, just tonight he went after Donald Trump and unleashed on him. Pretty feisty remarks about him tonight.

And so, all eyes for the moment are on Donald Trump and how he handles this situation in Chicago, where his First Amendment free speech rights have been shut down. The right of those to listen to him, and as that one gentleman put it so well, "I just wanted to hear him for myself. I just want to hear him for myself."

That was shut down, by folks who have an agenda, and that's fine. You can depose Donald Trump, go for it. But is this the way? Is this the way to shut down the ability of Chicagoans and those who have traveled in some cases for miles and miles and waited for hours and hours to get in, to have their say and hear him for themselves?

For all these people know, they weren't Trump supporters. Maybe that gentleman would have walked away saying "You know what? He's not for me." We'll never know now, because they shut down their right to listen.
And Megyn Kelly is wrong, she is dead wrong. Trump's free speech rights were not shut down, for one simple reason, he is the one who decided to cancel his speech. Nobody stopped him from giving his speech, there were protesters, but he still could have giving his speech.

His rights were not taken away or shut down, because he decided not to give his speech. In fact, The University of Illinois Police and the Chicago Police put out a joint statement saying they DID NOT tell Donald Trump he had to cancel his rally. They even told Trump they had enough police there to handle the crowds. So it was Trump himself who decided to cancel the rally, which means his free speech rights were not shut down, he just got scared.

Trump also lied about it on Fox, he said the Chicago Police told him to cancel the rally, but the Chicago Police say that is not true, it is being reported by a Chicago reporter that the Police told her they never met with Trump or anyone from his campaign, and they never told Trump or anyone to cancel the rally. So once again Trump was caught lying, and it looks like he got scared and decided to cancel it, Mr. tough guy got scared and ran away.

The same Chicago reporter said she could not believe Trump was even having a rally there, in the heart of the city in a student and minority area. She said she has never seen a Republican ever have a rally in that area, and that he should have had it somewhere else near the suburbs, because almost everyone knew it would be trouble in that area.

Insane O'Reilly Blames Obama For The Rise Of Donald Trump
By: Steve - March 12, 2016 - 9:00am

It's not only insane, it ridiculous. The rise of Donald Trump is because there is a far-right racist wing of the Republican party that loves a racist like Trump. They are old white Republicans, mostly from the south, who love the racist talk from Trump. The other part of the Republican party that loves Trump are the people who hate the Republicans in Congress so they vote for Trump because he is an outsider.

And none of that has anything to do with President Obama.

A lot of those same Republicans also hate Obama simply because he is black, and that is not his fault either. He can not control if someone hates him because of his skin color. To blame Trump on Obama is nonsense, and it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. Trump is doing good with a group of Republicans because he is a racist and a lot of them like that, and because he was a birther.

Crazy O'Reilly said this:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So I don't think the president is ever going to cop to the fact that we live in a polarized country and he is responsible for much of that polarization. Out of the polarization rises one Donald Trump. Correct?

I think he caused it in the sense that he implanted, in the minds of conservative Americans, an anger. They don't like him. They don't like what he has done. There isn't anything they like about him. And that anger is reflected by Donald Trump.

What I heard the president say, is that look, you are not going to lay this on me because I really didn't have anything to do with it. And I disagree 100 percent with that.
I disagree 100 percent with O'Reilly. There is polarization, from racist Republicans who hate Obama because of his skin color. That is not Obama's fault, he is not to blame for hatred against him by some racist idiots who do not like him because he is black. Obama has not done anything to make them hate him, as O'Reilly claims, they simply hate him because he is a Democrat and a black man.

In fact, Obama has been a good President, he got us out of a Bush recession, served while gas prices dropped to under $2.00 a gallon, served while Wall Street went over 17,000, got 200,000 jobs a month back, and helped to get the economy back on track. O'Reilly and the Republicans ignore all that, and claim Obama is hated, when the facts show that only the far-right loons hate him, and that is not his fault they are racist idiots.

There is no reason to hate Obama, unless you are a Republican, or a racist, or both. The Independents and Democrats do not hate him, only the Republicans do, and it's not all of them, just some of them.

As Donald Trump emerges as the likely Republican presidential nominee, some right-wing media figures who oppose him have begun to place the blame for his rise on President Obama's supposed partisanship, arguing that Obama's intransigence created the environment for Trump to flourish.

This argument ignores the role Republican politicians played in creating a partisan divide by deciding at the beginning of Obama's presidency not to work with him, regardless of what he proposed.

And btw, Fox News and O'Reilly are also to blame for a lot of the hate from Republicans for Obama. Because they have spent 7 years lying to their viewers about Obama, so they are almost as much to blame for Trump as the racists in the Republican party. Fox also gives Trump 10 times more air time than any other Republican, including O'Reilly, who is good friends with Trump and biased for him.

O'Reilly ignores all that and will never admit the truth, while spinning out right-wing propaganda that says Obama is to blame for Trump. The very same right-wing propaganda and talking points that O'reilly said he never uses, which is also ridiculous. Most of his statements and talking points read almost word for word the same as what the Republican party puts out.

Trump Cancels Chicago Rally Over Security Concerns
By: Steve - March 11, 2016 - 7:30pm

CHICAGO -- Donald Trump postponed his Friday night rally in Chicago because of "growing safety concerns" created by thousands of protesters inside and outside of the University of Illinois arena hosting the event.

The Republican front-runner's rallies have become increasingly violent in the past two weeks, and Trump's remarks are often interrupted by protesters denouncing his controversial stances, especially those on immigration and the treatment of Muslims. But Trump has never had to cancel a rally because of the threat of protesters.

At about 6:35 p.m. Central Time, an announcer told the crowd of at least 9,000 that Trump had arrived in Chicago but decided to postpone the event because of security concerns. The protesters burst into cheers and chants of: "We stopped Trump!" Others chanted the first name of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

The Trump campaign released a statement that said: "Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with law enforcement has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date."

Several of the celebrating protesters clashed with Trump supporters who were disappointed that the event was canceled. Shoving matches broke out, and security struggled to break up one altercation before another started. After the event, the crowds moved outside the arena.

Even before Trump's rally in Chicago started on Friday night, numerous nasty verbal altercations broke out throughout the crowd. An entire section of the arena appeared to be filled with protesters but police and security working the event only removed protesters who were disruptive, like a black man and a young Latino man who screamed at Trump supporters and flipped them off. Others ripped up signs.

Trump later called into MSNBC and said on the air that he did "the right thing" by canceling his rally in Chicago.

"You can't even have a rally in a major city in this country anymore without violence or potential violence," Trump said. "I didn't want to see the real violence and that's why I decided to call it off."

Trump added, "You have so much anger in the country -- it's just anger in the country, and i don't think it's directed at me or anything. It's just directed at what's been going on for years."

In an interview with anchor Chris Matthews, Trump was defensive and argued that the anger boiling over at his rallies had been building for years and was not spurred by his campaign alone.

"We have a very divided country," Trump said. "We have a country that's so divided that maybe even you don't understand it. I've never seen anything like it."

When Matthews asked whether he would tell his supporters not to engage with protesters, Trump said he wanted them to leave the Chicago arena peacefully.

"I don't want to see people hurt or worse," he said.

O'Reilly Totally Ignored The Trump Rally Sucker Punch Story
By: Steve - March 11, 2016 - 11:30am

As I expected, on the Thursday Factor show Bill O'Reilly never said one work about the 78 year old white guy sucker punching the young black man at a Trump rally Wednesday. He ignored the entire story, just as Fox did. MSNBC was reporting it all day, but Fox and O'Reilly ignored it.

The white man was even arrested the next day on Thursday, but only after the video hit social media and it was reported on. The cops did nothing to the white guy, except tell him to go back to his seat, while the tackled the black guy who was punched, then they lied and said they never saw the punch, when the video clearly shows the cops looking right at it, about 8 of them.

O'Reilly ignored it all, because he is a friend of Trump and he does not want to make him look bad. If this had happened at a Sanders or Clinton rally O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and do an entire show on it.

O'Reilly Says Sanders Can Not Win Because Of The Polls
By: Steve - March 11, 2016 - 11:00am

Now it is most likely Hillary Clinton is going to beat Bernie Sanders, but I am reporting what O'Reilly said to point out his flawed logic and his double standards. O'Reilly said Sanders can not beat Hillary in Florida or Ohio because the polls show Hillary with big leads.

Even though the polls showed Hillary leading by as much as 20 points in Michigan, then they had an election, and Sanders beat her. So the polls are not always right, and O'Reilly claims he only deals in the facts and does not allow speculation on his show.

O'Reilly has even said he has a no speculation zone, then he speculated that Sanders can not win Florida or Ohio because the polls have Hillary leading in both states. O'Reilly has also in the past said that polls can be wrong and be biased depending on who takes them and by what the question is.

O'Reilly basically broke all his own rules to claim Sanders is done and Hillary will beat him in Florida and Ohio. So much for only dealing in the facts and the no speculation zone, it's all crap from O'Reilly. He hates Sanders so much he makes statements that are not based on facts, just polls, that have been wrong before, and were just wrong in Michigan.

Democrats Are Now Favored to Win The Senate
By: Steve - March 11, 2016 - 10:00am

With Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz positioned to fight it out for the Republican presidential nomination, Democrats are now poised to take over the Senate in November, said Stuart Rothenberg.

"The two Republicans still in the race who could help their party's Senate prospects, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, continue to flounder. While a deadlocked GOP convention in Cleveland could, at least in theory, nominate a candidate with broad appeal and low enough negatives to revive the party's Senate prospects, that development is both a long way in the future and a long shot."

"There is evidence that a Democratic electoral wave has started to develop and at this point, Democratic control of the Senate is not yet inevitable. But that should not obscure the fact that a fundamental shift has occurred in the electoral cycle over the past six weeks."

Cops Tackle Black Man Who Got Sucker Punched At Trump Rally
By: Steve - March 10, 2016 - 11:30am

Now this is ridiculous, a black man who was protesting at a Trump rally was being led out of the building by 5 or 6 cops, and as they were going up the stairs a white guy jumps out and sucker punches him in the face. So what did the cops do, they tackled the black guy who got punched.

What did the cops do to the white guy, nothing, zero. Well someone filmed it and posted it on social media later that night, so then and only then did the cops arrest the white guy who sucker punched the black guy, the next day. The cops did nothing to the white guy who threw the punch, until the video was later posted on the internet and it was reported in the Washington Post and on MSNBC.

Trump even said he wanted to punch the guy in the face, and when it was reported someone did, the Trump campaign put out a statement saying they had nothing to do with it. Even though Trump tells people to rough protesters up at his rallies, and he said he wanted to punch the guy in the face.

Trump even encouraged the crowd to vent its fury at the protestors, saying this: "See, in the good old days this didn't use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough," he said. "We've become very weak." Then they claim they had nothing to do with it, after saying in the good old days they were rough and not weak like today. So one of his supporters got the message and sucker punched the black guy.

I remember Trump saying at one Iowa rally he had, to rough up a protester and if they get in trouble for it he would pay for their attorney. And btw, this story is all over MSNBC, but on Fox not so much. I have been watching Fox for about an hour and they are not saying anything about it.

INSIDE EDITION tracked down the supporter, 78-year-old John McGraw, who was unrepentant.

When asked if he liked the rally, he said: "You bet I liked it. Knocking the hell out of that big mouth."

And when asked why he punched the protester, he said: "Number one, we don't know if he's ISIS. We don't know who he is, but we know he's not acting like an American, cussing me... If he wants it laid out, I laid it out."

He added: "Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."

And for the record, the black man who got sucker punched is an American citizen who was born in America and has a job, he is a tax-paying U.S. citizen who was simply protesting Donald Trump.

From the Washington Post:

Multiple videos show a protester at a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina being sucker-punched by a Trump supporter.

The videos, which appeared on social media early Thursday and are shot from different perspectives, show an African American with long hair wearing a white T-shirt leaving the Trump rally as the audience boos. He is being led out of the rally by men in uniforms that read "Sheriff's Office." The man extends a middle finger to the audience on his way out.

Then, out of nowhere, the man is punched in the face by a white man with a pony-tail in a cowboy hat, black vest and pink shirt as the crowd begins to cheer. The black protester stumbles away, and then is detained by a number of the men in uniforms, who handcuff him while he is on the ground.

Rakeem Jones, the man who was hit, said the punch came out of nowhere.

"Boom, he caught me," Jones told The Washington Post in a telephone interview. "After I get it, before I could even gain my thoughts, I'm on the ground getting escorted out. Now I'm waking up this morning looking at the news and seeing me getting hit again."

John McGraw, 78, was charged with assault and disorderly conduct in connection with the incident, Cumberland County Sheriff's Office spokesman Sean Swain told The Post on Thursday.

Jones said he and four friends - a diverse group that included a white woman, a Muslim, and a gay man, had gone to the rally as a social experiment. He said the woman with them started shouting once Trump's speech began.

"She shouted, but at the same time, they were shouting too," Jones, a 26-year-old inventory associate, said. "Everyone was shouting, too. No one in our group attempted to get physical."

Jones blamed the Cumberland County officers escorting him from the rally for failing to protect him - then detaining him instead of the man who attacked him.

"It's happening at all these rallies now and they're letting it ride," Jones said. "The police jumped on me like I was the one swinging." He added: "My eye still hurts. It's just shocking. The shock of it all is starting to set in. It's like this dude really hit me and they let him get away with it. I was in police custody and still got hit."

The incident is now the subject of an internal review, Swain said. Authorities are combing through video footage of the rally and conducting interviews to try to determine what happened.

Note: The cops claim they never saw the white guy in the pony-tail sucker punch the black guy, which is ridiculous, in the video you can see some of the cops looking right at it, and they did nothing to the white guy, all they did was tackle the black guy who was hit. The cops told the white guy who hit him to sit down and the guy kept eating his popcorn.

"No one should be subjected to such a cowardly, unprovoked act as that committed by McGraw," Sheriff Earl Butler said in a statement posted to Facebook. "Regardless of political affiliation, speech, race, national origin, color, gender, bad reputation, prior acts, or political demonstration, no other citizen has the right to assault another person or to act in such a way as this defendant did. I hope that the courts will handle this matter with the appropriate severity for McGraw's severe and gross violation of this victim's rights."

Conservatives Should Stop Whining About Obama Skipping Reagan Funeral
By: Steve - March 10, 2016 - 11:00am

This actually happens all the time no matter who the president is, but conservatives are throwing a fit because President Obama did it. On Sunday, former First Lady Nancy Reagan passed away at the age of 94. Tributes have since poured in from across the country, even from President Obama himself.

Obama said this:
"Our former First Lady redefined the role in her time here...As somebody who is lucky enough to have an extraordinary partner in my life as well, I know how much she meant not just to President Reagan but to the country as a whole. He was lucky to have her. She will be missed."
Now that does not sound like a man who didn't personally like or respect Mrs. Reagan. But because President Obama has decided not to attend her funeral, conservatives are freaking out and throwing hissy fits despite the fact that this is nothing new for Presidents.

While Presidents usually attend the funerals of former Presidents, they have historically skipped the funerals of other high ranking officials and First Ladies, often sending the current First Lady to represent them at the service. Michelle Obama is, in fact, attending Nancy Reagan's funeral.

President Obama will be taking part in an interview in Texas at the South by Southwest Festival, where he is also scheduled to speak about civic engagement and using technology to address the challenges we face in the future. This was planned prior to Reagan's death.

Yet, conservatives see this as a sign of disrespect. The only problem is that he is hardly the first president to skip a funeral for a former First Lady.

For instance, President Clinton did not attend Pat Nixon's funeral in 1993 and President Bush did not attend Lady Bird Johnson's funeral in 2007. President Obama also did not attend Betty Ford's funeral in 2011.

Jimmy Carter did not attend Mamie Eisenhower's funeral in 1979 and Franklin D. Roosevelt did not attend Lou Henry Hoover's funeral in 1944.

Conservatives should also know that Ronald Reagan did not attend Bess Truman's funeral in 1982, and keep in mind that she was First Lady when her husband President Harry Truman ushered in the end of World War II by ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and was the longest lived First Lady in American history.

The bottom line here is that conservatives have nothing to complain about. Nancy Reagan's funeral is also a private one and it is quite possible that President Obama was simply not invited to attend and the only reason Michelle Obama will be in attendance is because it is a long tradition that First Ladies attend the funerals of their predecessors just as Presidents attend the funerals of their predecessors.

I would also bet that since most Republicans hate the President with a passion, they would not want Obama to go to the funeral. And if he did go, they would most likely slam him for going, so he can not win no matter what he does or does not do.

O'Reilly Defends Trump Over Nazi Salute Scandal
By: Steve - March 10, 2016 - 10:00am

The real journalists reported this story like this, Trump was wrong to have people salute him like they did with Hitler and pledge to vote for him. Some people were offended by it, but of course O'Reilly defended Trump and slammed the people who did not like what Trump did.

Now I have reported on O'Reilly for over 15 years, and I can guarantee you if this had happened with a Democrat running for office, O'Reilly would slam them and call for them to stop doing it because it is offensive to some people. The photos are disturbing, it does look like the people at the Trump rally are doing the Hitler salute.

But O'Reilly does not care, because Trump is his friend and they are both Republicans. Think about this, Trump is so bad almost no Republicans in office are supporting him, in fact, most of them are working to get him defeated. That is how bad Trump is, a big number of members of his own party are opposed to him.

But O'Reilly ignores all that to lcall Trump an avenger, and to attack the people who slam Trump for doing offensive things. When we all know that if a Democrat did half of what Trump did O'Reilly would be all over them and say they are not qualified to be the President. When Trump does it he not only defends it, he calls the fool an avenger, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly said this Wednesday night: "Charges Of Racism And Fascism Are Easy Smears Designed To Stop Freedom Of Expression And Stifle Debate"

He also said this:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): In the face of all of that, an avenger named Trump has risen, promising to stop the madness and giving blunt voice to millions of angry Americans. The movement that Trump represents has nothing to do with fascism, everything to do with furious dissent.

This memo is not a campaign ad for Trump. I know for a fact that some very bad people are trying to exploit his campaign to disguise racial and social hatred. They are doing that.

Donald Trump should loudly condemn those people, and tone down some of his own inflammatory rhetoric. Just tell us what you want to do, no need to incite. Same thing is happening with the Bernie Sanders crew, where some haters are supporting Bernie in order to tear down marketplace freedoms and inflict pain on prosperous Americans.

The cold truth is, charges of racism and fascism are easy smears designed to stop freedom of expression and stifle debate. Here's more truth. The USA turned for the worse long before Donald Trump ever entered the political arena. And Germany has nothing to do with it. And that's the Memo.

Clinton And Sanders Both Call For Michigan Governor To Resign
By: Steve - March 10, 2016 - 9:00am

And if he does not resign, he should be recalled and thrown out of office. They also both want the EPA investigated. Minutes into Sunday evening's CNN Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Michigan, both candidates called for the state's Republican governor to resign.

While not an unusual move -- many politicians, activists, and residents have demanded the same since news of Gov. Rick Snyder's serious neglect in tackling Flint's lead-polluted drinking water went public -- it showed solidarity in the candidate's outrage over how the state government handled the ongoing public health crisis.

"I believe the governor of this state should understand that his dereliction of duty was irresponsible," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in his opening remarks.

Unlike Sanders, who already asked for Snyder to step down in January, Sunday's debate was the first time Hilary Clinton demanded the governor's resignation. "I will start by saying amen to that," Clinton began. "The governor should resign or be recalled, and we should support the efforts of citizens attempting to achieve that."

Clinton did criticize Snyder shortly after Sanders first called for his resignation, especially for ignoring a city with a predominantly low-income, black population.

"If the kids in a rich suburb of Detroit had been drinking contaminated water and being bathed in it, there would've been action," Clinton said in January. Snyder responded to her outcry on Twitter, saying her finger-pointing was a distraction to the real crisis at hand.

Both candidates agreed that getting rid of Snyder wasn't the only solution to helping reverse the serious damage lead-heavy water has left on the city's residents. Multiple members of the state government were at fault, they agreed -- and it would take stronger federal interference to avoid similar disasters in the future.

"As the President of the United States, this is what I would do if local government does not have the resources, federal government comes in, federal government acts," Sanders said.

But when asked if the head of the Environmental Protection Agency should also step down in the wake of the crisis, neither candidate gave a concrete answer.

Clinton stressed that the higher-ups were the ones pushing for intervention that was largely being ignored by state-level officials.

Sanders echoed Clinton's reply: "President Sanders would fire anybody who knew about what was happening and did not act appropriately."

The Numbers With Registered Voters Are Not Good For Trump
By: Steve - March 9, 2016 - 11:00am

Insane Bolling Compares Erin Andrews To Trump Nazi Salute
By: Steve - March 9, 2016 - 10:00am

Now this is unreal, and it proves that Eric Bolling is a lunatic.

Eric Bolling: "Erin Andrews Is Therefore Also A Nazi, Because She Had To Raise Her Right Hand When She Swore Into Her Big Lawsuit"

Partial Transcript:

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): You know, I think that people think that when you don't say something about the birther argument, which came from Trump, when you don't say something about condemning the man in very negative tones as a Muslim, he's lying to us, he is not a Christian. And then you say, well, you know what in the talk radio world, we'll just say this, because it is just Obama, we'll demonize him. Then when Trump springs up and becomes your leading Republican candidate, I think other Republicans do have some responsibility.

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): OK, but see, your point that you're making, you didn't have to use the metaphor of radical Islam. Your point is actually -- yeah, you could say that, the rhetoric from cable news and from the rhetoric from talk radio could have contributed to the creation of Trump --


GUTFELD: -- Makes sense, maybe. But comparing it to radical Islam, the rise of Islam, that's where you lose me.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, this is where you lose people on the Hitler analogy, right?


WILLIAMS: That Hitler killed thousands of people and the Islamists are killing thousands of people. I don't see Donald Trump doing that. Now, we have an immediate --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Whoa! Thank god. A moment of reason and sanity. Thank god, holding my breath.

WILLIAMS: But we have a controversy on the table, right now. I think there are lots in the Jewish community who did not like Trump raising his hand, and having everybody else in the audience raise their hand. And they -- I'm just saying, I read this in the forward emails, where they compare it to a, you know, a kind of Hitler salute.

ERIC BOLLING (CO-HOST): You know by the way, Erin Andrews is therefore also a Nazi, because she had to raise her right hand when she swore into her big lawsuit.

BBB Says Trump Lied About Trump University Rating
By: Steve - March 9, 2016 - 9:00am

Spokesperson: "At No Point Did BBB Change The Rating Of Trump University Based Upon A Demand From Anyone"

A statement from a Better Business Bureau spokesperson confirmed fact-checkers conclusions that Donald Trump has made misleading claims about Trump University's ratings from the consumer group.

On March 8, a spokesperson for the Better Business Bureau Serving Metropolitan New York issued a joint statement with the Council of Better Business Bureaus addressing "several misconceptions that have been reported publicly and repeated regarding Trump Entrepreneur Initiative (formerly Trump University)."

Claire Rosenzweig, the president and CEO of the BBB Serving Metropolitan New York, the affiliate group responsible for maintaining records on Trump University, reiterated that the business's rating had "fluctuated between a D-minus and an A-plus" and explained that the low ratings of Trump University stemmed from "multiple consumer complaints about the business."

Rosenzweig asserted, "At no point did BBB change the rating of Trump University based upon a demand from anyone." She explained that BBB policy automatically discounts ratings more than three years old, leading to a gradual upgrade in Trump University's rating over time as the business winded down and no new complaints were reported. Rosenzwieg also clarified that "Trump University has never been a BBB-accredited business."

From the March 8 news conference:
CLAIRE ROSENZWEIG: BBB did not send a document of any kind to the Republican debate site last Thursday evening. The document presented to debate moderators did not come from the BBB that night. Trump University does not currently have an "A" rating with BBB. The BBB business review for this company has continually been "no rating" since September of 2015.

BBB ratings are based on information we obtain about a business, including complaints received from the public. The reporting period is three years.

At no point did BBB change the rating of Trump University based upon a demand from anyone.

During the period when Trump University appeared to be active in the marketplace, BBB received multiple consumer complaints about this business. These complaints affected the Trump University BBB rating, which was as low as a D-minus in 2010.

As the company appeared to be winding down after 2013, no new complaints were reported. Complaints over three years old automatically rolled off of the business review, according to BBB policy. As a result, over time, Trump University's BBB rating went to an A in July 2014 and then to an A-plus in January 2015.

Trump University has never been a BBB-accredited business. The document handed to the debate moderators on Thursday night could not have been an actual Better Business Bureau accreditation notice for this business.

BBB publishes ratings for both accredited and non-accredited businesses when we have sufficient information and the business continues to operate.
Trump's now-defunct Trump University business -- which The New York Times described as "not a real university at all but a series of seminars held in hotels across the country" -- is currently facing multiple pending lawsuits brought by former students and the state of New York alleging misrepresentation, leading to attacks against the GOP presidential front-runner from his rivals Sens.

Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). In response to Cruz and Rubio's attacks on the campaign trail and at the February 25 CNN debate and March 3 Fox News debate, Trump continued to defend his business by repeatedly claiming that Trump University "has an 'A' rating from the Better Business Bureau," tweeting a misleading screenshot he claimed represented the current BBB rating page for Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, and falsely alleging that the group had sent him a fax about the ratings during a commercial break at the Fox debate.

Previously, fact-checkers from PolitiFact, CNN's Reality Check, The Washington Post, and all concluded that Trump's claims about Trump University's BBB rating were "misleading," "literally wrong," and "false," citing an earlier BBB statement that explained that Trump U's rating has "fluctuated between an A+ and D-" and that Trump U.

Currently has no rating because it is "believed to be out of business." The BBB has also previously clarified that the screenshot of the organization's website Trump tweeted following the March 3 Fox debate "did not show the current BBB Business Review or the current rating" for the business, and that the group did not send a fax to Trump during the debate.

The March 8 statement reiterated that the document Trump tweeted and has subsequently referenced that showed the business holding an "A" rating was "not a current business review of Trump University."

Bill Maher Gives The GOP A Donald Trump Reality Check
By: Steve - March 8, 2016 - 10:00am

While it's unknown how everything is eventually going to play out with Donald Trump and the Republican party, it is very likely that we are witnessing the end of the GOP as we know it. If Republicans are planning to try to push this to a brokered convention where they select someone other than Trump -- all hell is going to break loose.

And if Trump does go on to be the Republican nominee, all the Republicans who do not support Trump might stay home and not vote, or vote for a 3rd party candidate, either one will destroy the party and pretty much guarantee a win for Hillary.

The only way Trump is not going to become the nominee is if the Republican party basically does whatever they can to sabotage his chances. I can almost guarantee you that would lead to him running as a third-party candidate if for no other reason than to spite the GOP.

No matter what happens, Republicans will only have themselves to blame. Donald Trump is the result of decades of pandering to ignorance, racism, bigotry, anger and intolerance. It wasn't a matter of if a candidate like Trump ever went to the top of the GOP presidential ladder, it was just when.

The Republican party, the once proud party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, sold its soul to the white vote only long ago and now they're paying for it.

That's exactly what Bill Maher said on Friday when he absolutely crushed Republicans for acting dumb about Trump and why he's become so popular with so many conservatives.

"They made a Faustian deal with the racist devil years ago and now those chickens are coming home to roost," Maher said.

"What about voter ID laws?" he asked. "What about once defending the guy who gets shot, the black guy, instead of the cop. Who are they kidding? This is the party they are and Trump is just the latest."

When one of his guests, conservative writer Matt Lewis, tried to claim that Trump really doesn't represent the party, the Real Time host was having none of that. "It was called the Southern Strategy when Nixon did it," Maher said. "Reagan started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It's always been a winking campaign to get white people, mostly, who have a resentment to vote racially. Let's not pretend this is new."

Maher is absolutely right. Back during Nixon's days, when Democrats were embracing equality, the GOP realized that they could exploit angry, white racism to their advantage. This is what's now known as the "Southern Strategy."

It was the deliberate effort by the GOP to basically use growing African American support for Democrats as a recruiting tool for racist whites who felt their values were no longer being represented as Democrats moved to become the party of racial equality.

Let's not forget that the GOP is the party that elected former Grand Wizard of the KKK and well-known white supremacist David Duke to public office in 1989.

Bill Maher made the same point I have been making for weeks, that it's crazy for Republicans to act as if they did not know about the racism, and the bigotry and ignorance that has been a big part of their party for decades.

This is exactly what the Republican party signed up for all those years ago when they decided that pandering to the worst parts of our society was a good political strategy.

Laura Ingraham Is A Massive Right-Wing Hypocrite
By: Steve - March 8, 2016 - 9:00am

One day she slams the Republicans for allowing undocumented workers from working in America, the next day she loves it and says it is ok, when Trump is caught doing it.

Now here is the dirty little secret about undocumented workers, the Republicans allow it, by not passing laws that have big fines for corporations caught using undocumented workers, and for not giving the Government the money to hire enough enforcement officers to enforce the law.

Republicans avoid the new laws and fines for corporations, because they are in their back pockets. They want undocumented workers because they are cheaper, and that is a fact. They could stop it next week, if they wanted to, but they dont, because the corporations give them money not to pass laws that would stop it.

Here is what Ingraham said:

Laura Ingraham Is "Happy" That Trump Hired Undocumented Polish Workers

Flashback: Ingraham Previously Lamented Hiring "These Koreans, These South Americans, Central Americans" And Mexicans Over American Workers

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham said "I'm just glad that Polish people are getting any work," following reports that Donald Trump hired undocumented workers from Poland to build Trump Tower over thirty years ago.

LAURA INGRAHAM: The big debate last night, we have a lots of people very excited over at National Review, because Marco Rubio. He had a terrific night, no doubt about it. He came prepared, he came ready for bear and he decided that he was going to go at Trump with everything from, well you've been investigated thirty-eight years ago for Polish workers, working on your buildings, I'm just glad that Polish people are getting any work, frankly, as someone who is half Polish. Then he brought up that some of your ties are made in Mexico or China, and of course, almost all clothing is made overseas today, almost all.

This comment comes months after she railed against Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio's donors for "ensuring a never-ending flow of foreign workers and low-wage, low-skill immigrants into the country, they don't want to deal with hiring Americans."

Ingraham lamented that Rubio supporters would hire "these Koreans, these South Americans, Central Americans" and Mexicans over American workers. From the November 11, 2015, edition of Courtside Entertainment Group's The Laura Ingraham Show.

INGRAHAM: Both Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, and other fellow Republican super-donors are essentially doing all they can to ensure a never-ending flow of foreign workers and low-wage, low-skill illegal immigrants into the country to keep their businesses humming with low-wage workers.

So whether it's Adelson or Singer, these guys just want the influx, they want that labor pool to be so fat with low-skilled foreign workers that they won't have to raise wages. That's what they demand, that's what they want. They don't want to deal with hiring Americans.

Hiring Americans, that's just too much work. It's much easier to get these Koreans, these South Americans, Central Americans to come over here, the Mexicans to come here, they don't mind living 12 or 14 people in a house, they don't mind working 14 hours a day.

They don't ask for lots of raises and time off to spend with their families, they just work their fingers to the bone and then they'll send their money home, and that's it.

Does that bother you that Paul Singer -- open borders, immigration amnesty, on the social issues extremely liberal -- does it bother you that he is the big backer of Marco Rubio? What does he want from Rubio? And what has Rubio, if anything, promised him?

Fox News Own Focus Group Slams The Fox GOP Debate
By: Steve - March 7, 2016 - 10:00am

Luntz: "Raise Your Hands If It Helped The GOP -- None Of You"

Partial Transcript:

FRANK LUNTZ: Megyn, I don't know how happy you all at Fox are going to be, but I want a word or phrase to describe tonight's debate, and I'm going to start in the second row.


FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: Embarrassment.

FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: Disappointing.




FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: Low on substance.


FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: School yard brawl.

LUNTZ: OK, now this ain't good, because there are millions and millions of people who watched the debate, and this is the most negative response I have had. I got one more question. By a show of hands, how many of you thought this helped the Republican party, what they saw tonight across the country? Raise your hands if it helped the GOP. None of you. So what is the problem? What is your anger? Explain it to me.

FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: They're not getting their points across. They're not telling us about what they want to do as president.

FOCUS GROUP MEMBER: They're giving sound bite fuel for the Democrats.

LUNTZ: Megyn, I want you to watch this. How many of you walked in here, be honest, how many of you walked in here supporting Donald Trump? Raise your hands. How many of you thought Donald Trump won the debate tonight? Raise your hands. One person.

Snyder Aide Says Governor Knew About Flint Water Issues In 2014
By: Steve - March 7, 2016 - 9:00am

And O'Reilly ignored it, to this day he has not said one word about this story, or anything about the Flint water crisis.

Aides close to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and his top lawyers discussed concerns about water quality in Flint and its impact on health as early as October 2014, a full year before the water source was switched back to Detroit and away from the Flint River, according to a review of 550 newly released emails by the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News.

At least one aide says the concerns were brought directly to the governor himself.

Valerie Brader, deputy legal counsel and senior policy advisor to Snyder, argued after the city left the Detroit water system and began drawing its drinking water from the Flint River that it should return to Detroit in an October 14, 2014 email to the governor’s chief of staff, Dennis Muchmore, and two other top aides.

It was at that time that General Motors announced it would stop using Flint River water because it was corroding its machinery, and Brader cited bacterial contamination in the water, all of which made the situation an "urgent matter to fix."

She wrote, "As you know there have been problems with the Flint water quality since they left the DWSD [Detroit Water and Sewerage Department], which was a decision by the emergency manager there," adding, "Specifically, there has been a boil water order due to bacterial contamination. What is not yet broadly known is that attempts to fix that have led to some levels of chlorine-related chemicals that can cause long-term damage if not remedied (though we believe they will remedy them before any damage would occur in the population)."

Those chemicals are trihalomethanes (TTHMs), a carcinogen that can cause kidney and liver damage, among other issues, and two months later the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a notice in Flint that it had violated the allowable levels of TTHMs in the water. It violated that level two more times after that.

While the city acknowledged GM's decision to stop using Flint River water on October 16, it said the move "ensures that Flint residents will continue to have safe quality drinking water but minimizes the impact on GM's machining work."

In an email response to Brader also sent to the governor's top aides the same day, Michael Gadola, Snyder's legal counsel and a former Flint resident, said, "To anyone who grew up in Flint as I did, the notion that I would be getting my drinking water from the Flint River is downright scary," and said the city "should try to get back on the Detroit system as a stopgap ASAP before this thing gets too far out of control."

He also added, "Too bad the [emergency manager Darnell Earley] didn't ask me what I thought, though I'm sure he heard it from plenty of others."

Brader said in an interview this week with the Detroit News that she never raised the concerns in her emails with Snyder directly, nor did Gadola. But Muchmore told the Free Press that they did reach the governor at the time of the October 2014 email exchanges. "We shared them," he said. The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment on the emails.

But it took a year before anything changed for Flint residents. Muchmore said Thursday that cost was the biggest hurdle in discussions about whether the city should go back to using Detroit's water. He told the Detroit News, "A lot of us felt like 'I don't care what it costs' and 'we have to go back' because people didn't have any faith in the water system at the time."

The Treasury Department said the cost of reconnection would be an extra $1 million a month, more than what the city could afford.

In January of 2015, Flint's emergency manager Earley rejected the idea of switching back to the Detroit water system. Brader said Earley told her the problems with the Flint River water were expected to improve and weren't likely to come back. In a February 5th email, Muchmore brought up the idea of putting a $2 million state grant for Flint toward reconnecting to Detroit.

"Since we're in charge, we can hardly ignore the people of Flint," he wrote to communications officials in the governor's office, the DEQ, and Treasury Department. "After all, if GM refuses to use the water in their plant and our own agencies are warning people not to drink it, we look pretty stupid hiding behind some financial statement."

But the water source wasn't switched back until October of 2015, after Snyder approved using an estimated $12 million in city, state, and private funding. At that point, the harm had been done and lead and other contaminants are still leaching into the water from damaged pipes. It has now been acknowledged as a widespread public health crisis.

There have been some indications before that the governor may have known about the problems in Flint long before action was taken. State officials brought bottled water to a state building in the city in January 2015 out of concern over the water quality, a year before bottled water was made widely available to residents.

Other emails previously indicated that the administration was made aware of a Legionnaires outbreak in March 2015, with a potential connection to the water contamination, even though Snyder said he didn't know about it until early this year.

But these latest emails are the clearest evidence yet that Snyder's administration, and quite likely Snyder himself, knew about the problems almost immediately after they began occurring.

The revelation has prompted at least one group to call for his resignation. "There's no reasonable person who can believe at this point that every top advisor to Rick Snyder knew that there was an issue, but Snyder knew nothing. At worst he's been lying all along and at best he's the worst manager on the planet. Under either scenario he's clearly unfit to lead our state and he should resign immediately," Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan, said in a statement.

"Without question, Snyder and his entire administration have failed Flint and the residents of Michigan, to him Flint families weren't as important as the bottom line on his spreadsheet. There are no more excuses and no more scapegoats. The Governor must resign."

And btw, a recall petition to remove him from office was recently approved by a state panel. But O'Reilly still refuses to report on it, when the Republican Governor might be recalled. Even though he reported it a lot when the Democratic Governor Gray Davis was recalled.

Trump Now Says He Would Not Order Military To Torture People
By: Steve - March 6, 2016 - 10:00am

The serial liar Donald Trump now says he would not order the military to torture anyone, days after aying he would, and that he would also order them to kill the family of terrorists, including kids and women. So basically, how can you believe a word this liar says?

One day after touting his ideological flexibility on the debate stage, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump demonstrated that flexibility on Friday by reversing his position on torture.

Though for many weeks Trump has been telling crowds he would bring back the practice of waterboarding and other forms of torture that are "a hell of a lot worse," he sent a statement to the Wall Street Journal on Friday promising to stay within the bounds of international law.

"I would use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies," he said. "I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

Less than 24 hours previously, Trump was on the debate stage in Detroit doubling down on his vows to kill civilian families members of terrorists, use waterboarding to get information out of prisoners, and bring back other forms of torture banned by international law.

When debate moderators told him that former military and intelligence leaders have suggested that the U.S. military can and should refuse to carry out such orders if Trump becomes commander in chief, Trump responded: "They're not going to refuse me. I'm a leader, I've always been a leader, I've never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they're going to do it."

Killing innocent family members of terrorists would violate the Geneva Conventions, which also bans torture, including waterboarding.

Yet many Republican have greeted his promises to commit these acts with enthusiastic support. In New Hampshire, voters said they see the torture of suspected terrorists as useful both for gathering information and for pure retribution.

Many other Republicans agree. A 2015 poll found that 73 percent of Republicans said torture against prisoners is sometimes justified.

Even though not only is torture illegal, legal experts and former interrogators say it's an ineffective and inaccurate way to gather intelligence, and it severely damages the reputation of the U.S.

As former national security, law enforcement, and interrogation professionals who served in an array of government agencies explained in a recent open letter: "It tends to produce unreliable information because it degrades a detainee's ability to recall and transmit information, undermines trust in the interrogator, and often prompts a detainee to relay false information that he believes the interrogator wants to hear. It also increases the risk that our troops will be tortured, hinders cooperation with allies, alienates populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and provides a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm."

In late 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report that also found "the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.' The report says many tortured detainees "fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence."

Partial List Of Republicans Who Say They Will Not Vote For Trump
By: Steve - March 6, 2016 - 9:00am

Donald Trump is hated by so many people that even a lot of big name Republicans are saying they will never vote for him, here is a partial list.

Glenn Beck: "I Won't Vote For Hillary Clinton, And I Won't Vote For Donald Trump."

Fox's Erick Erickson: "I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump For President Of The United States Even If He Is The Republican Nominee."

Bill Kristol: "I Would Try To Recruit A Real Conservative To Run."

Kevin Madden: "I'm Prepared To Write Somebody In So That I Have A Clear Conscience."

Peter Wehner: "I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump If He Wins The Republican Nomination."

Robert Kagan: "The Only Choice Will Be To Vote For Hillary Clinton."

Philip Klein: "This Conservative Would Never, Ever, Ever Vote For Trump."

Steve Deace: "I Will Not Lend My Name And An Ounce Of Integrity To This Reality Television Star's Charade."

Tom Nichols: "I'll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump."

Bethany S. Mandel Would Prefer "Even Hillary Clinton To Trump."

Doug Heye Won't Support Trump "Because Of Trump's Perversion Of Conservatism, Along With The Devastating Impact He Would Have."

Claire Berlinski: "I'd Vote for Hillary Before Trump."

David Freddoso: "I've Made Clear I'll Be Looking For A Third Party Candidate."

Tara Setmayer: "I Will Never Vote For Him. EVER."

Rick Wilson: "With God As My Witness, I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump."

Liz Mair: "I Will Either Vote Third Party Or Do A Write-In, Potentially Of Myself."

Eliot A. Cohen Would Vote For Clinton Over Trump.

Jay Caruso: "In Good Conscience I Will Not" Support Nominee Trump.

Ben Howe: "I Will Phone Bank For Hillary If Trump Is Nominated."

Neil Stevens: "I Will Never Support Donald Trump In An Election (Primary Or General)."

Bob Owens: "I Will Stay Home In November Before I Vote For Either Hillary Or Her Buddy Donald. It's Called Having A Moral Compass."

How The GOP Plans To Dump Trump At The RNC Convention In Cleveland
By: Steve - March 5, 2016 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly has totally ignored this story because Trump is his friend and he does not want to give it any publicity. But it is real, and they are already planning for it. The only thing that can stop it is if Trump wins Florida and Ohio, if he loses those two states the plan is possible, if he wins them it is not.

From the Republican website

Despite a growing string of victories in the Republican primaries, the DC-Wall Street cabal that has dominated the GOP since 1988 has no intention of letting the billionaire real estate mogul be nominated.

None other than Karl Rove has insisted the stop-Trump effort is not too late and can succeed. When Rove tried to explain it to O'Reilly on the Wednesday night Factor show, O'Reilly shut him down, talked over Rove, and dismissed it, then changed the subject.

A new superPAC has dumped $10 million dollars into blistering negative TV ads against Trump in the last three days. The Koch brothers and their associates deny funding the effort but they denials are questionable at best. The New York Times reported Sunday that the Rubio and Kasich campaigns are now openly planning on a "brokered convention" to stop Trump in the back rooms in Cleveland.

The New York Daily News reported that Barbara Bush has vowed revenge against Trump for ending the campaign of her son Jeb, and that the Bush clan is all-in in the effort to stop Trump. The Daily News reported that Jeb may even transfer the $25 to $30 million in SuperPAC funds he has left to an anti-Trump effort.

The power-brokers short term game is clear; stall Trump just short of the magic number of delegates needed to be nominated on the first ballot with the knowledge that many delegates bound on the first ballot by Trump primary and caucus victories would be unbound on a second ballot.

Much in the way the RNC stacked the galleries with anti-Trump partisans in the last two debates, anti-Trump quislings are be planted in various delegations that will be free to betray Trump on subsequent ballots.

If Cruz prevails in Texas and Kasich can hold Ohio the insiders game of keep away could get some legs. The cabal of billionaires who are bankrolling Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have served notice on the young Senator that he must win his home state of Florida on March 15th or get the hook.

Mitt Romney, who passed up the 2016 race because he deemed Jeb Bush unstoppable is suited up to enter late primaries in California, New Jersey and elsewhere in the hopes that the party would turn to him on a second ballot. This explains why Romney has suddenly emerged as a twitter critic of Trump's chiding him for not releasing his tax returns in the middle of an IRS audit and not renouncing the support of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke fast enough.

The Republican nomination process was already rigged: the campaigns of the four early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada) have been traditionally controlled by high paid consultants and party leaders who convince candidates to spend hundreds of millions on media, staff and early state necessities.

The big money needed has to come from somewhere--namely from special interests who demand loyalty on key issues: government handouts/bailouts, open borders, and especially big government. The demands of early big money usually clear the field of anyone unacceptable to the Republican Racketeers: when Newt or Santorum didn't play along in 2012, they were swamped under by big money.

In 2016, Trump doesn't need the racketeers money because he has the Republican grassroots, but the racketeers have one last play: fix the Rules of the Conventions. For example, do you know how many delegates Trump must get to be nominated for president today? Zero. Cruz, Rubio, and all the rest? Also zero.

Why? Because the Rule that allows them to be nominated (Rule 40) requires "permanently seated delegates" for nomination. But that won't happen until the Credentials Committee meets at the convention!

Then there is rule 40-B.Please note that Rule 40 as it is currently written expires on the day before the convention when the Rules Committee meets to make up the new Rules of the Convention and for the Republican Party for the next 4 years.

Rule 40-B currently requires a nominee to have the majority of the permanently seated delegates from at least 8 states. Romney lawyer Ben Ginsberg was able to change Rule 40 from plurality of the delegates from at least 5 states to the current rule.

The potential for skullduggery is clear. Even if Trump runs the tables in the primaries winning a plurality in virtually every state the rule can be tailored by a controlled Rules Committee to prevent a Trump nomination.

Under control of the insiders the number of states required can be amended to any number to block Trump.

Also, the goal of the extended nomination process will be to make it so either no one gets to eight states (or what ever number the establishment changes it to) Then, under the guise of letting the voters be heard, the Rules committee will make a more lax Rule 40. After all, Cruz and Rubio and Romney deserve to be nominated, they will argue.

Romney will enter the late primaries because he is concerned that Rule 40 B will be changed to allow only those who won some delegates from voters in the states to be considered and because he might stand a better chance of chiseling delegates from Trump in late winner take all primaries than the hapless Rubio.

Surely the party pros know that a nomination wrenched from the hands of Donald Trump would be worthless but they don't care. The ruling elite that has dominated the party would rather have Hillary Clinton than the uncontrollable nationalist Donald Trump. The idea of a president not beholden to the ruling elite is more than they can stand.

There are many great aphorisms in politics but this one may be the key to who ends up President: he who knows the rules, rules. Right now, it's Reince and the Racketeers who know them best. Beware Republicans: the big steal is coming.

Trump Is Winning Because Of His White Nationalist Strategy
By: Steve - March 5, 2016 - 9:00am

Basically what he did was say to hell with the blacks, mexicans, Latinos, women, etc. He decided to go to the far-right and target the angry white racist nationalist crowd, and it worked. Republican turnout is at a record pace. Because Trump is getting the angry/racist whites to get out and vote for him. Which explains why he did not want to slam David Duke or the KKK, because they are in his target voting base.

After Mitt Romney's resounding loss to President Obama in 2012, the Republican Party did some much-publicized soul-searching. The so-called autopsy report published by the Republican National Committee owned up to one glaring lesson: as the face of America continues to get browner, the party needed to extend its appeal past its traditional base of older white men or face obsolescence.

"It is imperative that the RNC changes how it engages with Hispanic communities to welcome in new members of our Party," the report declared, later adding, "The Republican Party must be committed to building a lasting relationship within the African American community year-round, based on mutual respect and with a spirit of caring."

Fast forward to 2016, when the party's likely nominee is an old, white billionaire who launched his campaign by denigrating immigrants and cemented his popularity by calling for a ban on Muslims.

So what happened to the minority outreach that was supposed to be the core of the new Republican Party?

Donald Trump’s dominance of the Republican primary is not a fluke. It represents an alternative path in the war for the GOP's identity -- a vision of the party's future that's a lot whiter and more hateful than the minority outreach plan.

After Trump finally and reluctantly disavowed the latest white nationalist to endorse him, Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the party attempted some damage control.

The RNC released a video Monday featuring African Americans explaining why they identify with the Republican Party (the answer: self-empowerment).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also made sure to express his disapproval of Trump. "There has been a lot of talk in the last 24 hours about one of our presidential candidates and his seeming ambivalence about David Duke and the KKK, so let me make it perfectly clear," McConnell said.

"That is not the view of Republicans who have been elected to the United States Senate, and I condemn his views in the most forceful way."

But the RNC has pledged to back Trump 100 percent if he wins the nomination, a near certainty after Tuesday night.

After George W. Bush's narrow and contested win in 2000, white nationalist blogger Steve Sailer argued in a column called "GOP Future Depends on White Vote" that the party should focus on maximizing white voters rather than pour resources into minority outreach.

That strategy hinged on fearmongering about immigrants stealing jobs to win over union-loyal white workers from the Democratic Party. It caught on quickly in white nationalist circles within the Republican Party.

The Sailer Strategy enjoyed a resurgence after Obama's re-election, in direct opposition to the RNC's warning about minority voters. A sector of the GOP base, led by prominent conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan, rejected the idea that the math required the party to accommodate non-white voters. Instead, they said, the GOP should encourage white voters to see themselves as a united tribe with the same interests, regardless of whether they live in Mississippi or California.

Buchanan even called for a renewal of the infamous Southern Strategy, which Republicans used to alienate Southern whites from the Democratic Party after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. This time, Buchanan argued, the strategy could be deployed against immigrants rather than black people.

Enter Donald Trump. His campaign launch in June immediately identified Mexican immigrants as the enemy.

"They are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us," he said. "They are bringing drugs and they are bringing crime, and they're rapists."

Before that comment, Latinos and whites viewed Trump similarly. Afterward, his popularity with white voters immediately shot up. His favorability among Latinos tanked.

The Sailer Strategy may not have been formally embraced by the RNC, but white voters have flocked to the Republican Party, particularly since the election of the first black president. The Tea Party swept Congress in 2010 on a wave of support from older white voters. Romney won a record share of white voters in 2012.

The whites-only strategy may win Trump the Republican nomination, but it will be a much harder sell in the general election. The missing white voters that Sailer bases his theory on don't actually exist. And the pool of white voters keeps shrinking.

Even if Trump can increase Romney's percentage of white voters, he would still need at least 42 percent of the Latino vote to secure the presidency -- close to double the number who voted Republican in the last presidential election.

Trump's claims that Latinos love him don't bear out in reality. He has alienated Latinos by historic margins, and strongly negative views of Trump have only grown more intense among Latino voters throughout his campaign. According to a Washington Post-Univision poll, Trump would lose Latinos to Hillary Clinton by an even larger number than Romney lost in 2012.

Meanwhile, the Republican party's official plan to win over Latinos, African Americans, women, and younger people never really took off. Rather than adjust Republican policy platforms to fit key priorities for these voter groups, party officials have generally insisted they simply need to speak their language.

Policy-wise, the GOP's attempt to pitch minorities has gone off the rails. Since the autopsy report, Congressional Republicans have sabotaged immigration reform, pushed voter suppression measures aimed at minorities, restricted contraceptive access, and blamed poverty on inner city laziness.

And RNC Chair Reince Priebus seems willing to embrace the influx of new energy even if the price is Trump as the nominee.

"I think that people are upset with government, I think they're upset with both parties. Donald Trump's tapping into that," Priebus said back in August.

"I actually think it could be quite good for our party because I think what you're seeing is a lot of people people that were frustrated with politics are saying, 'Well maybe I've got an outlet here.' And if they're coming and tuning into our debate tomorrow night and getting involved in our party, I think that that ultimately could be very helpful."

The Real Reason Trump Backed Out Of CPAC Speech
By: Steve - March 4, 2016 - 11:30am

The organizers of the Conservative Political Action Convention announced on Friday that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump had backed out of his appearance at the conference scheduled for Saturday morning.

"That doesn't surprise me in the least bit," Ryan Wasson, a 23-year-old student at Hunter College said. "You hear a lot of anti-Trump rhetoric and that's getting back to him. I think he wants to feel welcome, but I don't think he would feel welcome and he shouldn't feel welcome at a conservative conference."

Wasson said Trump's decision will exacerbate the conservative civil war, already seen in full force at CPAC. Many speakers at the conference have already criticized his candidacy and how his nomination would forever hurt the Republican Party.

Many CPAC attendees also opposed to Trump had been planning to walk out in protest during his Saturday morning speech, a potentially embarrassing moment for the GOP frontrunner.

The event organizers said his decision to drop out "sends a clear message to conservatives."

Shortly after the announcement, Trump released a statement saying he will be in Wichita, Kansas for a campaign rally Saturday, so "he will not be able to speak at CPAC as he has done for many consecutive years."

Valerie Greenfeld and her son, both Ted Cruz supporters, said they were disappointed that Trump backed out because it was one of the main reasons they came to CPAC. "I would have liked to hear what he has to say, more on a personal level than what we heard from the debate last night," she said.

Her son, Sam Greenfeld, a 20-year-old student at the University of Tampa, added that he doesn't understand why Trump would back out of a conference with so many young attendees when the youth vote is vital to his campaign.

"I'm personally glad he's not going to be here because I don't like him very much, but that's very surprising news," he said. "I think Trump obviously is very emotionally sensitive. He tries to be a tough guy but he's a pansy. The polls and the crowd here seem like it's a majority Cruz fans, so I wouldn't be surprised if Trump just got scared."

Rick Collin, a Congressional staffer from Bismark, North Dakota, felt similarly.

"Maybe he was afraid he'd be booed," he said. "There are a lot of people here who are not happy with Trump."

And btw, Ben Carson, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will all be speaking at CPAC, Trump is the only one who will not speak there.

Trump Runs Away After Report He Credentialed White Nationalist Radio Show
By: Steve - March 4, 2016 - 11:00am

Donald Trump's presidential campaign is running for cover following the revelation that a white nationalist radio show received press credentials for a Trump rally and will feature an interview with Donald Trump, Jr.

On March 1st it was reported that James Edwards, host of the white nationalist radio program The Political Cesspool, had written in a blog post that he "attended a Donald Trump rally in Memphis on Saturday night as a fully credentialed member of the media" and that his upcoming show "will feature a previously taped 20-minute interview with Donald Trump, Jr."

Edwards repeatedly praised Trump in his blog post, calling him "the first Republican nominee that I have ever voted for" and declaring him "the only candidate who gives us a chance at having a fighter who will put America first."

As myself and the media has documented, national civil rights groups have criticized the program for supporting anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and white supremacists like David Duke. The show openly states on its website that it's a "pro-White" program that wishes "to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility."

Edwards has also claimed that Martin Luther King Jr.'s "dream is our nightmare," "interracial sex is white genocide," and "slavery is the greatest thing that ever happened to" African-Americans.

After coming under heavy criticism, the Trump campaign has responded by furiously backpedaling, seeking to avoid the taint of their toxic white nationalist supporters as Trump tries to solidify his hold on the Republican nomination.

Trump's campaign claimed in a March 2nd statement that media credentials were provided "to everyone that requested access to the event on Saturday in Memphis," adding: "There were close to 200 reporters in attendance and we do not personally vet each individual. The campaign had no knowledge of his personal views and strongly condemns them."

But Trump's campaign has frequently denied access to specific reporters and publications who have displeased them. In fact, according to The Wrap, the African-American publication The New Tri-State Defender was denied credentials for the Memphis event Edwards attended.

Trump's son has also claimed that he "wouldn't have consented to an interview with a pro-slavery radio host had he known the host held those views," according to BloombergPolitics. He asserted that the interview "was not vetted" and was the result of him calling "35 different stations to tout his father's GOP presidential campaign, and one host asked him to speak with another host, who ended up being Edwards."

Trump's campaign has repeatedly been the subject of heavy criticism and struggled to provide explanations for the support and praise they have received from white nationalist groups and figures.

White nationalists have praised Trump for spurring "unprecedented interest in" their ideology and putting their ideas "firmly in the mainstream." Trump was recently excoriated after he repeatedly refused to denounce former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke's support during a February 28th CNN interview.

Ted Koppel Gives O'Reilly A Truth Smackdown
By: Steve - March 4, 2016 - 10:00am

Since its inception, Fox News has driven the Republican party further to the right because stirring up fear, anger, negativity and hostility is better for business. You're not going to make much money being middle of the road, impartial and practical. To be a ratings leader, which Fox News is, you have to sell fear, hate, anger and propaganda, nearly all the time. You have to indoctrinate people by pandering to what they want to hear, whether or not what you're telling them is actually true.

This is exactly what's happened. The Republican party is now propped up by people who couldn't care less about truth or facts. They just want people to tell them what they want to hear. That's how someone like Donald Trump has become the overwhelming Republican frontrunner for president.

He's essentially the living embodiment of the conservative media running for the highest office in our nation.

Well, during an interview with Ted Koppel, Fox News Bill O'Reilly brought up Donald Trump, mentioning how difficult he is to interview, and asked the former ABC news anchor how he might handle The Donald.

Koppel didn't pull any punches and essentially blamed the rise of Trump on people like Bill O'Reilly. Journalists who've sold their souls by sacrificing journalistic ethics and integrity for the sake of entertainment and money.

"You and I have talked about this general subject many times over the years. It's irrelevant how I would do it," Koppel said. "You know who made it irrelevant? You did. You have changed the television landscape over the past 20 years.

You took it from being objective and dull to subjective and entertaining. And in this current climate, it doesn't matter what the interviewer asks him, Trump is gonna say whatever he wants to say, as outrageous as it may be."

After Koppel said this, uncharacteristically, O'Reilly cowered down. Usually the Fox News host would try to fire back at someone who had just slammed him the way Koppel did, but not this time.

O'Reilly sat there, took it and didn't jab Koppel back, then basically acted like it didn't happen by continuing to press the former anchor as to how he would handle interviewing someone like Trump.

While it was subtle, looking at O'Reilly's reaction after Koppel said what he did spoke volumes. Because he knows what Koppel said was absolutely true. Fox News puts people like Bill O'Reilly on during their peak viewership hours, not to inform people of the news, but to entertain them.

To pander to the audience and to tell them what they want to hear. What Koppel basically did was call O'Reilly nothing but an entertainer and a fake journalist on live television.

And the best part about it was, looking at the way Bill O'Reilly reacted to Ted Koppel's comments, you could tell the Fox News host knew he was right.

Republican Nicolle Wallace Admits Some At Fox Are Biased For Trump
By: Steve - March 4, 2016 - 9:00am

And while she does not name names, you know one of the people she is talking about is Bill O'Reilly, who is a good friend of Trump and is constantly defending and promoting him all the time.

She talks about a finger on the scale in a Pro-Trump way for ratings, and that is Bill O'Reilly all the way.

Partial transcript:

RACHEL MADDOW (HOST): Can we get a little specific about that for a second? We've been talking about this a little bit off line. My perception of this is that the Fox News channel is being viewed by more insurgent conservative media as basically in the tank for Rubio.

And there has been a little friction between the rest of the conservative media and Fox News for a while, but the perception that Fox News is in the tank for Rubio has driven some hostility, not just right-wing hostility. No just ideological hostility, but a real divide.

WALLACE: It's a big story on the right. And we have been talking about this shattered glass that represents the Republican Party. There is no greater symptom of that wreckage, than what's happening at Fox News in my view. I watch Fox News. There are hosts that are obviously enthusiastic about someone other than Trump. There are shows that are viewed as a platform for anti-Trump journalists from print outlets.

There are hosts -- more on the opinion side - who are viewed as putting their finger on the scale on a pro-Trump way. Obviously this is television. It's not NPR. Ratings are in play as well.

But this division in the Republican Party among these three candidates is playing out among conservative media in a vicious way, one I have never seen before. There are bold statements made. There's hash tagging in a lot of conservative media circles, never Trump.

And I think that Trump supporters, when they dig in after something that really, I think stunned everyone, this three days it took to disavow the KKK. This is also reflected in the fact that the conservative media -- like all of us have done tonight -- expressed disbelief at his slow pace at responding.

But his supporters -- this is where they start to part ways with the national conservative media -- they dug in and they stuck by him tonight.

Mitt Romney Calls Trump A Phony And A Fraud
By: Steve - March 3, 2016 - 11:50am

Thursday morning Mitt Romney delivered a sweeping broadside against Donald Trump, laying into the Republican presidential front-runner with a sharper attack than any of the party's 2016 contenders have made against the billionaire business mogul.

"Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, and a fraud," Romney said. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat."

Romney said that "dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark," pointing to his "bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics."

Romney didn't endorse a candidate -- saying that, due to the party's delegate apportionment process, he'd vote for Rubio in Florida or Kasich in Ohio, if he lived in any of those states, when they vote on March 15.

It was, in effect, an argument for a contested convention, which would come only if Trump couldn't win enough delegates to capture the nomination on the first ballot.

"If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism," he said.

Romney also slammed Trump on foreign policy, casting him as "very, very not-smart" in his comments about allowing ISIS to take out Syria's leadership and for proposing the slaughter of the families of terrorists.

"Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less-than-noble purposes. He creates scapegoats in Muslims and Mexican immigrants. He calls for the use of torture. He calls for the killing of innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protestors," he said, adding that Trump would trample First Amendment protections.

Romney also said Trump's remarks on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Syria and ISIS "has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants."

"Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme," Romney said.

He called on Trump to release his tax returns, predicting another "bombshell."

"I predict that he doesn't give much of anything to our disabled, to our veterans," he said.

In a move to drive home his argument now against Trump's temperament, Romney made an effort to pre-but Trump's response to his speech.

"Watch, by the way, how he responds to our speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences, or will he respond with every low-road insult?" Romney said.

He called on Trump to also ask The New York Times to release the recording of an off-the-record conversation he had with the newspaper's editorial board.

O'Reilly Says Billionaire Trump Is A Regular Blue Collar Guy
By: Steve - March 3, 2016 - 11:30am

Which is not only ridiculous, it's laughable. Trump was born with a solid gold spoon in his mouth, his Father was a multi-millionaire and he left him and his sisters $200 million dollars when he died. To call him a blue collar guy is moronic, it's insane, and it just shows how far in the tank O'Reilly is for Trump.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Trump has gold everywhere in his mansions, even the toilet is gold, and he has his own private jets, and on and on, regular blue collar guys have none of that, you idiot.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Let me tell you something about Trump. You raised a good point. He's a billionaire. But the blue collars love him. But he's essentially a blue collar guy, Miller. I sit there at the game with Trump. We're not eating caviar. We're eating hot dogs. He's an ex-shortstop. He played baseball. He's not -- he doesn't walk around --

DENNIS MILLER: All that seems superfluous to me. He's starting to make some good enemies. And that always intrigues me.

GOP Senator Says He Will Not Support Donald Trump
By: Steve - March 3, 2016 - 11:00am

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse said Sunday night that he will not vote for Donald Trump if the billionaire wins the Republican nomination and will instead seek "some third candidate -- a conservative, a Constitutionalist" to support instead.

In a lengthy Facebook note posted late Sunday, Sasse argued that Trump does not appear to support the constitutional principles most dear to conservatives, such as limited government and First Amendment protections for religious liberty.

"Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public 'servants,'" Sasse wrote.
"I'm as frustrated and saddened as you are about what's happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump. Please understand: I'm not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I'm a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment."

"My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option."
Sasse, with the endorsements of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, beat two better-known Republicans in the GOP primary in Nebraska in 2014, in what was considered a win for the Tea Party wing of the party.

The freshman senator's announcement comes as other high-profile Republicans are beginning to line up behind Trump, the clear front-runner for the GOP nomination.

Sasse has been campaigning against Trump for weeks and has repeatedly taken to Twitter to attack Trump for everything from his positions on the Constitution to his history of broken marriages to his performance in the debates.

Trump Says 1st Amendment Must Go So He Can Sue The Media
By: Steve - March 3, 2016 - 10:00am

Trump Says Freedom of the Press Must Go Because He's 'Not Like Other People'

"With me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people. We're gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before."

Donald Trump wants to be able to take legal action against those he thinks are unkind in their reporting. Friday in Texas, Trump revealed his utter disdain for the First Amendment's freedom of the press, proclaiming that he's "gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

He complained to the crowd, as he sold them his own pack of lies, "I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I've ever met. They're terrible."

That's some claim coming from one of the 21st century's foremost liars. The solution to people reporting unwelcome facts about him, Trump says, is to tear up the First Amendment and start suing the media silly. This claim earned him thunderous applause. Nobody hates critics of Donald Trump more than Donald Trump than his cultists.

As a reminder, the First Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here is what Trump said:
"One of the things I'm gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I've never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win, is I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're gonna open up those libel laws.

"With me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people. We're gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we're gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before."

"I'm not like other people."
Actually, the United States Constitution says you are exactly like other people dumb ass, because under the Constitution, we are all equal before the law. There is no Donald Trump Exception clause anywhere to be found. Even the Founding Fathers had to take their lumps from their critics.

Let's not forget that this is the same Donald Trump who said in January, "I feel very strongly about our constitution. I'm proud of it. I love it."

He loves it enough to say it doesn't apply to him, because he is not like other people, whatever that means.

What is terrifying is that Trump thinks as president he will have the power to simply do away with the parts of the United States Constitution he does not like, as though the presidency gives him those powers. It does not.

The Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, and the process is not accomplished by one man's stroke of the pen, no matter who you are or how much money you have.

In fact, in his lack of knowledge of how government works, he ranks right up there with such morons as Sarah Palin.

The truth is, Trump has no clue how the U.S. government works, which is why he wants a political insider as Vice President. He needs somebody to tell him how to do the job.

And he has a lot of dummies to choose from. These guys can't even figure out how the legislative branch works, let alone guiding the president through the intricacies of the executive branch.

And this is the guy who complained that Obama's executive orders are in violation of the Constitution. I think we've taken both the measure of the man and of his followers through his words and their applause.

Kelly & Huckabee Discussing Trump David Duke Story
By: Steve - March 3, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is a partial transcript from the Megyn Kelly show on Fox, talking about the story O'Reilly said was a non-story with Trump and David Duke.

Watch Huckabee Stumble As He Tries To Defend Donald Trump's KKK Controversy.

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): What do you make of that? Let's start with Mitt Romney's response suggesting this is coddling of bigotry and disqualifying for Donald Trump.

MIKE HUCKABEE: I'm amazed that Mitt would say that. I mean, Donald Trump has repeatedly disavowed David Duke, disavowed the Klan. I don't think --

KELLY: When did he repeatedly disavow the Klan?

HUCKABEE: Well, he did it in his Twitter account. He did it on Friday --

KELLY: The Klan or David Duke?

HUCKABEE: Well, both. And I don't know of anybody who has ever suggested that Donald Trump is a racist. I'm not speaking as somebody who's out there advocating for Trump. I just want to say that I just don't think that Donald Trump has given any indication that he's supportive of the Ku Klux Klan. My gosh, who would be? --

KELLY: None except in that interview, is what his critics say. None except in that interview, is what his critics say. Because it was so strange that he would say on Friday, "I disavow David Duke," and then when specifically asked on Sunday, act like he didn't know who David Duke was.

HUCKABEE: You know, I can't answer that. You know, I really can't. You'll have to ask Donald Trump because I haven't talked to him about it. But the fact is --

KELLY: How do you explain that? What his critics say is the explanation is he heard very well and he was trying to give some sort of a dog whistle to people in the South who don't want to hear David Duke disavowed. That's what Mitt Romney is suggesting right there.

HUCKABEE: Sure. Mitt Romney wasn't on the ear piece. Neither was Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. And I wasn't either.

KELLY: But Trump heard, Trump heard David Duke in that ear piece. You know that. Because he repeated back David Duke to Jake Tapper.

HUCKABEE: Yeah. Look, here's the one thing I think is important. Is Donald Trump a racist? I don't think he is. Does Donald Trump support the KKK? Heavens no. I don't think anybody seriously is suggesting that he is giving a wink and a nod at the KKK. They're a deplorable, disgusting, abominable entity. Sometimes I'm amazed that they even still exist. I just don't know of anybody who embraces them anymore except a handful of crazy people.

KELLY: The very point you're making, that it's such a no-brainer, is what makes his response to Jake Tapper so confusing to many.

Mitt Romney To Give Major Speech On 2016 Presidential Race
By: Steve - March 2, 2016 - 11:50am

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will make a "major speech" on the 2016 White House race on Thursday.

Fox News said there was no sign that Romney was set to enter the 2016 race, citing people close to the 2012 White House hopeful.

The speech is scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. EST.

Peggy Noonan: Trump's Tuesday Wins Started Civil War In Republican Party
By: Steve - March 2, 2016 - 11:30am

And a lot of leading Republicans are saying if Trump does not have 50% of the delagates by the convention, they might dump Trump and put someone else in his place as the Republican nominee. They are ashamed that Trump is winning and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him at the convention. But if he gets more than 50% of the delagates it might be impossible to get rid of him.

Here is a partial transcript of what Noonan said:

NORAH O'DONNELL (HOST): You know Peggy, last night you were talking about it and you said we are, we are watching the Republican Party shatter right before our eyes. But Trump did well with moderates in the north, he did well with conservatives and evangelicals in the south. He said last night he is creating a much bigger party and in fact, turnout is way up.


O'DONNELL: Does he have a point?

NOONAN: Turnout, I think, reached in certain areas, historic levels. Look we are in an amazing point where the leading nominee for a party's nomination moved forward decisively as seen by all as the front-runner, if he were not Donald Trump, he would be celebrated as the probably unstoppable front-runner and what did it do last night?

It started a civil war in the party. It had been building for a few days, but last night, certainly on this air, we really saw it. Marco Rubio said, Trump gets the nomination, it will destroy the Republican party, it will split it. This is serious stuff and uncharted territory.

Six NJ Papers Call For Christie Resignation After Endorsing Trump
By: Steve - March 2, 2016 - 11:00am

Six New Jersey newspaper editorial boards are calling for Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) to resign for neglecting the state's constituents during his presidential campaign and his endorsement of GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

USA Today reported that six New Jersey newspapers associated with the USA TODAY NETWORK -- including the Ashbury Park Press, the Cherry Hill Courier-Post, and the Morris Daily Record -- expressed "editorial outrage" at Christie following a February 29 press conference where he refused to take questions from the press after spending "261 days out of state last year" and giving Donald Trump his endorsement:
"We're fed up with Gov. Chris Christie's arrogance," the papers wrote. "We're fed up with his opportunism. We're fed up with his hypocrisy."

The joint editorial notes that Christie spent part of 261 days out of state last year and traveled out of state to endorse Trump and campaign with him after he quit the race Feb. 10.

"For the good of the state, it's time for Christie to do his long-neglected constituents a favor and resign as governor. If he refuses, citizens should initiate a recall effort," the editorial said.
Christie faced a firestorm of media criticism after announcing his surprise endorsement of Donald Trump despite his earlier attacks on Trump during the race, calling him a "carnival barker," and criticizing Fox News support for him.

Trump has recently gained negative attention for his growing support among white nationalist groups and refusing to disavow the former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke. The front-runner has also faced backlash for proposing to block all Muslims from entering the country, accusing Mexican migrants of being rapists and murderers, and insulting a journalist's disability, among other things like name calling and childish insults.

Memo To Bill O'Reilly: Vegas Has Clinton The Favorite To Be President
By: Steve - March 2, 2016 - 10:00am

In Vegas you can bet on who will be the next President, here are the odds from and Bovada:

2016 US Presidential Election - Next President of the United States

Odds as of February 29 at Bovada

Hillary Clinton -175
Donald Trump +175
Marco Rubio +900
Bernie Sanders +1200
Michael Bloomberg +3300
Ted Cruz +6600
John Kasich +6600

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions these odds, as he is defending and promoting his friend Donald Trump and telling us how Trump has a chance to beat Hillary. When he knows that Trumps negatives are so high with everyone but far-right white guys he will never beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Trump Secretly Told NY Times Real Thoughts About Immigration
By: Steve - March 2, 2016 - 9:00am

And I am thinking it would hurt him with his far-right base so he is mad that they leaked it and does not want the Times to release the transcripts or the tapes. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have called on Trump to ask for the tape to be released.

The New York Times is sitting on an audio recording that some of its staff believes could deal a serious blow to Donald Trump, who, in an off-the-record meeting with the newspaper, called into question whether he would stand by his own immigration views.

Trump visited the paper's Manhattan headquarters on Tuesday, Jan. 5, as part of a round of editorial board meetings that -- as is traditional -- the Democratic candidates for president and some of the Republicans attended. The meetings, conducted partly on the record and partly off the record in a 13th-floor conference room, give candidates a chance to make their pitch for the paper's endorsement.

After a dispute over Trump's suggestion of tariffs on Chinese goods, the Times released a portion of the recording. But that was from the on-the-record part of the session.

On Saturday, columnist Gail Collins, one of the attendees at the meeting (which also included editor-in-chief Dean Baquet), floated a bit of speculation in her column:
The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn't believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you're making a deal. So you obviously can't explain how you're going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it's going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.
Sources familiar with the recording and transcript -- which have reached near-mythical status at the Times -- tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.

So what exactly did Trump say about immigration, about deportations, about the wall? Did he abandon a core promise of his campaign in a private conversation with liberal power brokers in New York?

Here is some total speculation, Trump told them the stuff about the wall and deporting 11 million illegals is all talk to get votes from the far-right racist wing of the Republican party. Which is most likely what he said, and why he wants to keep it secret.

They were not able to obtain the recording, or the transcript, and don't know exactly what Trump said. Neither Baquet, Collins, nor various editorial board members reached would comment on an off-the-record conversation, which the Times essentially said it cannot release without approval from Trump, given the nature of the off-the-record agreement.

Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal said he would not comment "on what was off the record at our meeting with him."

"If Trump wants to call up and ask us to release this transcript, he's free to do that and then we can decide what we would do," Rosenthal said.

More Details About O'Reilly Losing Custody Of His Kids
By: Steve - March 1, 2016 - 11:50am


A New York appeals court held last week that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's school-age children don't want to live with him anymore, and should live exclusively with their mother, O'Reilly's ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy.

The lengthy decision affirms the holding of a Nassau County Supreme Court justice last year that the children, now aged 13 and 17, should live full-time with their mother. As we reported at the time, O'Reilly appealed that ruling, thereby delaying its enforcement (and, of course, extending his multi-front battle against McPhilmy and her new family).

The Appellate Division issued its 1,400-word opinion on February 24, a little over a month after attorneys for O'Reilly and McPhilmy-known in court documents as Anonymous 2011-1 and Anonymous 2011-2-presented oral arguments at the division's courthouse in Brooklyn Heights.

According to the opinion, the court's four justices unanimously ruled in McPhilmy's favor based upon "the clearly stated preferences of the children."

The preference of McPhilmy and O'Reilly's 17-year-old daughter is not particularly difficult to guess: As we noted last year, she told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed O'Reilly drag her mother down a staircase by the neck. (According to court transcripts obtained by Gawker, she also viewed O'Reilly as a temperamental, absentee parent who was uninterested in developing a relationship with her.)

At a January 22 hearing, the children's court-appointed lawyer, Barbara Kopman, told the appellate court that both the daughter and son strongly preferred living with their mother over their father. (Gawker was able to attend but not record the court session, which was open to the public.)

While the court awarded sole residential custody to McPhilmy, it decided that O'Reilly and McPhilmy should continue to share legal custody-meaning that, even though they live with their mother, their father will continue to share joint authority over questions like which schools they attend, any medical care they receive, and what religion they practice; O'Reilly had demanded sole legal custody, an arrangement under which he alone would decide such matters.

Being able to influence his children's religious observation would likely be a priority for O'Reilly, who is well-connected within the Catholic Church. Those connections may explain why, after their divorce was finalized, the Church reprimanded McPhilmy in writing for telling her children her second marriage was valid in the eyes of God.

O'Reilly has also sought to formally annul his and McPhilmy's 15-year matrimony, which produced the two children whose lives he now seeks to control. But both the Nassau County justice overseeing the original case and the Appellate Division rejected his request for sole authority.

The same appeals court ruled in McPhilmy's favor over two years ago, in January 2013, after she discovered that the purportedly neutral therapist she and O'Reilly had hired to arbitrate custodial disagreements had been hired by O'Reilly to "perform virtually all of his parental duties."

In that opinion, the court remitted, or sent back, McPhilmy's request for sole custody to the Supreme Court of Nassau County, where she later won it. In the most recent opinion, however, the court simply upheld the lower court's ruling, thereby preventing this portion of the case from being further drawn out.

O'Reilly's legal dispute with McPhilmy is not entirely over, though. According to the court docket of the original divorce case in Nassau County, O'Reilly is currently pursuing contempt of court charges against his ex-wife.

This motion indicates that O'Reilly or his lawyers believe McPhilmy has violated or otherwise ignored the court's instructions. The docket does not say exactly why O'Reilly believes this, since in New York the details of divorce case motions are not public. But a person familiar with the case tells Gawker that the motion most likely arose from O'Reilly's belief that his ex-wife was interfering with the custody arrangement for their 17-year-old daughter.

The same person tells us their daughter has repeatedly refused to visit her father on the days designated for them to be together-a pattern of behavior for which O'Reilly is apparently blaming McPhilmy, rather than his own erratic behavior.

So his own daughter does not want to visit him on the days he has to see her, that is pretty bad, and shows what a terrible Father O'Reilly is, how bad do you have to be to cause your own daughter to not even be around you, pretty bad.

The justice in Nassau County in charge of the original divorce case has not yet ruled on O'Reilly's latest motion. It's not clear, either, whether the Fox News host will appeal the Second Department's ruling to the next highest court, the Court of Appeals in Albany. It's unlikely he would succeed in doing so, though. To be granted the opportunity to appeal, his lawyers would have to successfully argue that his divorce case raises questions about settled state law.

Furthermore, the Second Department's opinion seems to discourage O'Reilly from pursuing any further appeals. Its third sentence-"ORDERED that the [lower court's] order is affirmed, with costs"-indicates that O'Reilly must pay his ex-wife's attorney fees.

Hannity's Softball Trump Interview Ignores Duke/KKK Controversy
By: Steve - March 1, 2016 - 11:30am

Fox News host Sean Hannity failed to question GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump about the candidate's failure to disavow Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, despite interviewing Trump for nearly thirty minutes.

Trump has come under fire for failing to renounce Duke's endorsement after being pressed on February 28 by CNN's Jake Tapper to "unequivocally condemn David Duke" and the KKK. Trump dodged Tapper's questioning, claiming he doesn't "know anything about David Duke" and would have to "do research on" the white supremacist groups.

Trump blamed a "lousy ear piece" for his failure to condemn the KKK when overwhelming evidence surfaced revealing his familiarity with Duke.

Several Fox News hosts and right-wing pundits have come to Trump's defense, including Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle who lamented that Tapper was "trying to make something out of nothing," Fox host Bill O'Reilly who claimed the media was trying to "run down" Trump, and right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, who called Tapper's line of questioning "gotcha politics."

Sean Hannity ignored what some have called Trump's "politically toxic" remarks on the February 29 edition of Fox News Hannity, one day after Tapper's interview with Trump. While on his show, Hannity failed to ask Trump a single question about the controversy during a nearly thirty minute interview.

Hannity and Trump have long had a cozy political relationship, with Hannity admitting he advised Trump about getting in the 2012 election. In 2015, Hannity gave Trump 8 hours of airtime, interviewing Trump more than three times as much as the next GOP candidate.

O'Reilly Loses Custody Of His Kids After Choking Wife
By: Steve - March 1, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is another story you will never see reported on the Factor, or Fox News, Mr. "Family Values" Bill O'Reilly has been denied custody of his children by a New York court. The court ruled that O'Reilly was not fit to have custody of his kids after a domestic violence incident.

A New York appeals court denied Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's petition seeking custody of his two children.

The court's Feb. 24 ruling upheld a Nassau County Supreme Court decision granting full custody of the 12-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl to Maureen McPhilmy, the Factor host's ex-wife.

The official ruling said this:
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody.

Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother."
Last May, O'Reilly's daughter told a court that she saw Bill choking his wife and then dragged her down the stairs. Bill O'Reilly then tried to smear his wife by calling her an "adulterer" and also told his daughter that spending time with her mother would ruin her life. Bill and his wife divorced in September 2011.

I feel terrible for Bill's ex-wife, Maureen, as well as O'Reilly's kids. But I am glad he was denied custody because it seems like he was a danger to both his wife and kids. This is just another depressing example of a hypocritical "Family Values" Republican.

Bill O'Reilly denied these accusations earlier, but with Bill's clear anger issues, he wasn't fooling anyone. With all his fame and money, he still could not buy his way out of this one. O'Reilly is a multi-millionaire and the kids still did not want to be with him, and that says a lot about a man when his own kids do not want to live with their wealthy Father.

O'Reilly Only Has 2 Second Comment On Trump David Duke Stuff
By: Steve - March 1, 2016 - 10:00am

It was a passing mention in the Talking Points Memo by O'Reilly at the top of the show. O'Reilly said the David Duke stuff is a non-story:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): If Trump is actually the Republican nominee, we can expect a media assault on him that will be unprecedented in America. Every single day the press will hammer Trump, exposing every part of his life. Trump is getting ready.

O'REILLY: Now, Mr. Trump talking about what he would do as president -- attempt to change the libel laws -- but he can't do that now. And believe me, the press is just waiting. A preview is this David Duke stuff, a complete nonstory. I have spoken with Trump hundreds of times and I have never heard him run down anyone because of race. He doesn't care about that.
O'Reilly once again defended the racist idiot Donald Trump, by covering for Trump, ignoring the story, then saying it was a non-story. There was no segment on it, no details of the story, no video of the interview with Trump, nothing, just O'Reilly dismissing it as a non-story. Even though it was the #1 story in America, in the media and on google news.

Now after the Factor was over Megyn Kelly is on, and she had it as breaking news and her lead story. She had an opening statement about it, then had the Republican Mike Huckabee on to defend Trump, which was laughable, then after he left she had the Republican Congressman from New York Peter King on to slam Trump.

And btw, O'Reilly makes it out to be the liberal media out to get Trump, which is just not true, because the Republicans and Fox News are slamming Trump just as much or more than the so-called liberal media, everyone is slamming Trump except O'Reilly and all the other Trump loving idiots.

Congressman Peter King said this:
KING: "Donald Trump's refusal to denounce and disavow support from KKK supporter David Duke and white supremacist organizations is indefensible and disgraceful. Trump told Jake Tapper he doesn't know who David Duke is or what white supremacist organizations stand for. If Trump's statement is true, then he is genuinely dumb. If he is lying, that is shameful. In either case, he should not be running to lead the United States."

King added this: "As a Catholic I am particularly disgusted because of the KKK's long history and record of vicious anti-Catholicism. And as someone who grew up in Queens, I can say that, unlike Trump, real tough guys aren't afraid to take on the KKK."
And Trump is lying when he says he does not know Duke's history. In 2000, he wrote a New York Times op-ed explaining why he abandoned the possibility of running for president on the Reform Party ticket. He wrote of an "underside" and "fringe element" of the party, concluding, "I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep."

O'Reilly said it was a non-story and ignored it, because he is a friend of Trump and he is biased. If it's a non-story why is it the #1 story in the country, and why did Megyn Kelly make it her lead story and do half her show on it. Later on in her show she had two more segments about it with other guests, so she spent almost her entire show reporting on the so-called non-story.

And btw, Brit Hume was on to talk about Trump beating Hillary, he said it was pretty much impossible because she will get all the blacks, the women, and the latinos, and all Trump gets is the 30% of the white vote, but of course O'Reilly defended Trump and said he might beat her, which is just laughable.

Remember this is the same guy (Bill O'Reilly) who said Romney would beat Obama, and Obama killed him in the electoral vote, 332 to 206, so it was not even close.

One last thing, a google search on Donald Trump/David Duke gets 11.4 million results, at google news it gets 7.2 million results, and every media source you can name is listed and reported on it, except for Bill O'Reilly. And everyone I could find, including most Republicans, except of course for a few Trump supporters and O'Reilly, slammed Trump for it.

If that's a non-story, I am Bill Gates. And it has nothing to do with the so-called liberal media, it's about Trump not wanting to slam David Duke or the KKK because he wants the racist far-right Duke/KKK vote in the primary from that wing of the Republican party. He knows they are his supporters and he does not want to offend them.

Partisan Ted Cruz Blocking Federal Aid To Residents Of Flint
By: Steve - March 1, 2016 - 9:00am

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is holding up the passage of a federal aid bill for Flint, Michigan as residents continue to struggle with a lead poisoning crisis.

Bloomberg reported, "Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has placed a hold on a deal to vote on S. 2012 and funding for Flint, Mich., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. tells reporters.

Bloomberg reports Schumer said Cruz's objection stems from the part of the deal providing funding to Flint, without elaborating further."

Sen. Cruz uses the Senate as a personal platform to boost his presidential campaign on a regular basis, but even for Cruz, placing a hold on a bill that would help the people of Flint is a new low.

The main Republican objection to the bill is that they believe that the people of Flint should have to pay for their own federal assistance. Earlier in February, Senate Democrats blocked the energy bill because Republicans were dragging their feet on an aid package for Flint.

Earlier this month, Harry Reid called out Cruz's fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn for hypocrisy on Flint.

Reid said:
Last year Texas was devastated with historic flooding, it was the federal government that stepped in to provide disaster relief for the people of Texas. Who stepped in? The federal government stepped in to help the people of Texas.

That's why I was disappointed to see the senior Senator from Texas say:

"While we all have sympathy for what's happened in Flint this is primarily a local and state responsibility."

He didn't say that when the flooding was taking place last year.
Ted Cruz is showing why he and every other member of his heartlessly hypocritical party are not fit to lead the country and should not be trusted with the presidency in 2016.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: