By: Steve - May 31, 2016 - 10:00am
This is not journalism folks, it's propaganda you would expect to see in foreign countries where the state owns and runs the media. And if CNN or MSNBC did this for a Democratic candidate running for President, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for the FCC to take their broadcast rights away from them, but when Fox does it for Trump he is silent.
Media figures across the country trashed Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's hour-long special, Meet The Trumps, describing the broadcast as "something you'd see on a state-run television somewhere."
Even some Republicans were freaked out that Fox did a one sided biased softball special like that for Trump.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes: "A Glimpse Of What State Media Will Look Like After Glorious Leader Trump Is Victorious"
Seriously, what the hell is this?
Washington Examiner's T. Becket Adams: "This Is Real. This Is A Real Thing Being Broadcast On Fox News Right Now"
Buzzfeed's Hayes Brown: "Can Someone Link Me To The 'Meet The Obamas' Special That Aired In 2008"
Note: There is no link, because Fox never did a "Meet The Obamas" special.
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg: "Wow"
HotAir's Allahpundit: "Your Move, Hannity #raisingthebar"
Upworthy's Parker Molloy: "Is She Being Paid By The Number Of Times She Can Say 'Trump?'"
Media Matters called it an Obscene And Ridiculous Trump Infomercial.
Bankrupt Coal Company CEOs Took Huge Raises While Cutting Jobs
By: Steve - May 30, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is a story you will never see reported on the O'Reilly Factor.
Executives at the biggest coal companies increased their compensation and terminated workers while their companies spiraled into bankruptcy.
One of the defining traits of conservatives, particularly wealthy conservatives, is embracing any policy that enriches the already wealthy at the expense of others. It happens in Republican controlled states, the United States Congress, and of course in the corporate world; anything to provide more wealth for the rich no matter how devastating it is for everyone else.
In the corporate world it is not uncommon for CEOs and top executives to give themselves raises, lay off workers, steal retirement and healthcare benefits, and then file bankruptcy to fully screw the workforce while avoiding debts.
A new report released by Public Citizen earlier this week revealed that executives and CEOs at the nation's top coal producing corporations in America drastically "increased their personal compensation," slashed employee benefits, and terminated workers while their companies were spiraling into bankruptcy.
Most top executives at Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources received millions of dollars in compensation increases while the companies suffered massive debts; often due to fruitless expansions. Public Citizen sent out letters to the three top coal companies chief executive officers concurrent with the report "urging them to invest their multi-million dollar bonuses in a trust fund for laid off workers."
It never happened, and it is a fantasy to even begin to imagine a wealthy coal industry CEO investing their riches to help laid off workers.
The report pointed to coal industry layoffs and several attacks on workers benefits and listed the outrageous CEO's compensation increases from 2012 through 2014 while the companies were struggling financially in the year immediately preceding the bankruptcy filings.
As is always the case, there will likely be public outcry among coal workers and their families over these wealthy coal company executives receiving multi-million compensation packages while the businesses collapse and miners lose their jobs, retirement and healthcare benefits, but that will be the end of the story; a minor outcry.
And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, and never will.
Remember that directly after the Republican financial crisis and Great Depression of 2008, big banking executives and CEOs were awarded billions in salaries, hefty bonuses and other overly-generous benefits while their companies fell apart and workers lost their jobs by tens-of-thousands.
These coal company executives, like banking executives, will not be asked to forgo even a fraction of the extra compensation; not to help avert bankruptcies, stop job layoffs, or to preserve the workers retirement and healthcare benefits.
What the company failed to note in its filing was that during the "industry downturn" its chief executive officer received nearly $11 million in compensation packages amounting to nearly a nearly $2 million increase. That substantial raise occurred the same year that Peabody Energy tried to get out of its collective bargaining agreement with the United Mine Workers of America, the organization providing healthcare for retired mine workers.
It is not a stretch to imagine the Peabody executives telling the UMWA that it had to get out of the employee benefit business due to the industry's economic woes, not because it needed the money to enrich its CEO.
This corporate abomination is not unique to the coal industry by any means; it is typical across industries and Republican politics. Look at Republican-led states that are drowning in debt and cutting social programs like there's no tomorrow. All while complaining that revenue is falling due to handing outrageous tax cuts and subsidies to corporations and the wealthy.
Republicans in Congress have done exactly the same thing in giving subsidies to profitable corporations while complaining the nation is too broke to fund infrastructure repair and social welfare and domestic programs.
It doesn't matter how much people are outraged over these kinds of atrocities because nothing will change until Republicans are sent packing; and yes, this is a typical Republican issue. It is inherent in their politics, their libertarian belief tanks, and their legislation; it is little wonder it is business as usual with their campaign donors.
The losers, as usual, are the workers who lost jobs, healthcare benefits, and likely their retirement accounts to rich CEOs who awarded themselves hefty multi-million dollar raises while the companies they ran collapsed into bankruptcy.
Republicans Shocked To Find Out Trump Campaign Is Broke
By: Steve - May 29, 2016 - 10:00am
In a meeting with Senate Republicans, Donald Trump's campaign privately admitted that they are out of money and will not be able to run television ads until after the GOP convention in July.
Donald Trump's campaign has alerted Senate Republicans that he won't have much money to fight off attacks from Hillary Clinton over the next couple months.
The notice came when Paul Manafort, Trump's senior advisor, met with a group of Senate Republican chiefs of staff for lunch last week, sources familiar with the meeting told the Washington Examiner.
The admission suggests that Trump will be far more dependent on the GOP brass for money than he has led voters to believe, but it's consistent with his reliance on the Republican National Committee to provide a ground game in battleground states.
"They know that they're not going to have enough money to be on TV in June and probably most of July, until they actually accept the nomination and get RNC funds, so they plan to just use earned media to compete on the airwaves," one GOP source familiar with Manafort's comments told the Examiner.
Trump is also refusing to use his own money to fund his campaign. In other words, what Donald Trump is telling the voters is completely different from what is happening behind closed doors.
Vince Foster's Sister Slams Trump For Insane Conspiracy Theories
By: Steve - May 29, 2016 - 9:00am
Although many pundits have thoroughly debunked this conspiracy theory, no one has done so more powerfully than Vince Foster's own sister, who has written a blistering op-ed for The Washington Post that shames Trump for using her brother's death for political gain.
"It is beyond contempt that a politician would use a family tragedy to further his candidacy, but such is the character of Donald Trump displayed in his recent comments to The Washington Post," writes Sheila Foster Anthony.
"In this interview, Trump cynically, crassly and recklessly insinuated that my brother, Vincent W. Foster Jr., may have been murdered because 'he had intimate knowledge of what was going on and that Hillary Clinton may have somehow played a role in Vince's death. How wrong. How irresponsible. How cruel."
It certainly is, although it's sadly not surprising given how he's run his presidential campaign so far.
Anthony goes on to note that "five investigations, including by independent counsels Robert B. Fiske Jr. and Kenneth Starr, concluded that Vince suffered from severe depression that caused him to be unable to sleep, unable to work, unable to think straight, and finally to take his own life."
She also recounts her own personal history of seeing her brother struggle with his personal demons and of the intense demands of his job.
Fox Host Brags About Doing Most Victoria Secret Model Interviews
By: Steve - May 28, 2016 - 10:00am
And this is coming from a person who claims to be a journalist who works for a news network.
Fox's Kilmeade: "I Really Believe We've Done More For Victoria's Secret Models Than Anyone Else"
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): It's a sad day for women and men everywhere. Thanks to a huge change Victoria's Secret just made, this morning your mailbox just got a little less sexy.
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): What, exactly has Victoria's Secret done to change everything?
KILMEADE: Well Steve, I can't give it away now. I will say this, as a show, unofficially, we have done more interviews with Victoria's Secret models than any other modern show.
DOOCY: Pound for pound.
KILMEADE: Pound for pound, maybe Merv Griffin in the 70s. Who knows?
DOOCY: I don't think Victoria's Secret was around back then.
KILMEADE: Joe Franklin, maybe? But I really believe we've done more for Victoria's Secret models than anyone else.
Fox & Friends Deceptively Edited A 2007 Video Of Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - May 28, 2016 - 9:00am
They edited the video to make it look like Clinton blamed homeowners for the housing market crash and that she is "flip flopping now" to blame Wall Street.
But the speech transcript shows Clinton blamed Wall Street and a host of other financial actors, saying Wall Street "helped create the foreclosure crisis" and bears "responsibility" for the crash.
They also downplayed Donald Trump's expressed hope for a financial crisis in 2006, instead blaming former President Bill Clinton for a market crash and historic recession that occurred during the waning days of the Bush administration.
Fox co-host Steve Doocy used the clip to claim Clinton was switching her position, saying, "Hillary Clinton actually, these days she's blaming Wall Street. However back in the day in 2007 she was blaming the homeowners." Co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Clinton was "flip flopping now."
The Full Transcript Of Clinton's 2007 Speech Shows That She Blamed The Financial Industry, Saying: "Wall Street Helped Create The Foreclosure Crisis And Bears Responsibility."
In the December 2007 speech cited by Fox, Clinton blamed Wall Street, mortgage lenders, and brokers for the housing crash, saying, "responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending."
Clinton also said, "Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, to the Bush Administration and to regulators, and to the rating agencies."
Clinton heavily criticized Wall Street throughout the speech, saying, "Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not."
PolitiFact even rated Clinton's claim that "she called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight early on in the financial crisis" as True.
PolitiFact linked to several speeches, which showed "Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing oversight of financial institutions."
Insane O'Reilly Claims Conservatives Are Oppressed By Bathroom Bills
By: Steve - May 27, 2016 - 10:00am
Now this is crazy talk, and I can not prove it but I think O'Reilly is losing his mind. Because nobody is being oppressed by giving equal rights to transgender Americans, it is not oppression, it's enforcing equal rights for all.
Here is what the crazy fool said:
"When You Have The Federal Government Ordering Schools To Allow Any Gender To Shower, I Mean, That's An Oppression"
Veterans Group Slams Donald Trump For Lying About Money He Raised
By: Steve - May 27, 2016 - 9:00am
Donald Trump has often tried to exploit veterans for his own political benefit. We all saw this a few months ago when he tried to cover up the fact that he was terrified to face Fox News Megyn Kelly during a debate when he skipped the event, instead choosing to hold a fundraiser to raise money for veterans.
Anyone with half a brain could tell that this stunt was nothing but Trump using veterans to try to shield himself from criticism for skipping a crucial GOP debate.
Since that event, Trump has frequently bragged about the $6 million he raised for veterans. Of course, it's all been a lie. While Trump did raise money for veterans, he only raised $4.5 million, or 75 percent of what he's been bragging about all this time.
Apparently, several of Trump's big-money friends who promised they were going to donate backed out, though the campaign is refusing to name those people or which groups have been the recipients of this money. Naturally, some veterans groups were not at all pleased with Trump's exaggerations.
And what kind of person promises to donate money to veterans, then backs out when it is time to pay. That just shows what kinds of friends Trump has, and how untrustworthy they are.
Chairman of VoteVets.org, and Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz said this in a press release:
Donald Trump is a cheap fraud. In a classic fraud move, made himself look good to the public, by lying to the American people, and veterans, about how much he raised for veterans' groups, when he hid behind them to get out of the GOP debate.While some may dismiss this as, what's the big deal, the point is that he's knowingly been lying this entire time. And if he's actually worth $10 billion as he often brags about, why can't he just cut a check for $1.5 million to fulfill the promise he's been making to veterans all these months about the money he raised?
I also like the point Soltz brings up related to Trump's taxes. While there are many things in Trump's tax returns that I truly believe he wants to keep hidden, how much he's actually donated to veterans over the years is definitely something that's worth noting -- especially considering how often he's tried to use veterans as political props to boost his campaign.
As Soltz brought up, we really should wonder what he's hiding in his tax returns that he's obviously terrified to release. Again, I know it sounds like this is nitpicking over $1.5 million, but this is all part of a much larger issue with Donald Trump.
This is someone who constantly seems to lie or greatly exaggerate the truth -- almost all the time -- to make himself look better. That's a sign of a person who's incredibly egotistical, a narcissist and someone who's just not mentally sound enough to be this nation's president.
Elizabeth Warren Slams Insecure Money Grubber Donald Trump
By: Steve - May 26, 2016 - 11:00am
In a 2006 Trump University audiobook, Trump was asked about "gloomy predictions that the real estate market is heading for a spectacular crash." He responded by saying the prospect was actually something he was looking forward to.
Trump was glad the housing crisis happened, because then he could buy millions and millions of dollars of property for almost nothing, and make big profits off the backs of hard working Americans who lost their homes and other real estate.
"I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy," Trump said. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you can make a lot of money, If you're in a good cash position - which I'm in a good cash position today - then people like me would go in and buy like crazy."
Now that those comments have been reported, they're coming back to haunt the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) slammed Trump for the remarks, saying they're reflective of "a small insecure money grubber who doesn't care who gets hurt so long as he makes money off it and cares about no one but himself."
"Sometimes Trump claims he is tough on Wall Street, but now he is singing a very different song, he is saying that the new Dodd-Frank regulations, and I'm going to quote here, 'made it impossible for bankers to function' and he will put out a new plan soon that will be close to dismantling it," Warren continued. "Donald Trump is worried about helping poor little Wall Street. Let me find the world's smallest violin to play a sad, sad song."
"He said 'I sort of hope that happens.' He actually said that," Clinton said during a campaign rally on Tuesday. "And now he says he wants to roll back the financial regulations that we have imposed on Wall Street to let them run wild again. Well I will tell you what - you and I together, we're not going to let him."
Trump's defense of his remarks is that he was a businessman at the time and was thinking in a very different way than he would if elected president.
"I am a businessman and I have made a lot of money in down markets, in some cases as much as I've made when markets are good," Trump said in a statement. "Frankly, this is the kind of thinking our country needs - understanding how to get a good result out of a very bad and sad situation."
The 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession that ensued may have presented investment opportunities for Trump, but for the typical American family, it led to less income and more debt. The only households to see income gains during that period were the highest earners, continuing a trend of widening income inequality that now spans four decades.
Trump has used populist economic rhetoric throughout his campaign - for instance, he recently criticized Clinton for allegedly being "totally controlled by Wall Street" - but his economic platform is the standard Republican trickle-down propaganda, featuring a budget-busting tax cut for the rich and very little for the poorest Americans.
Meanwhile, Sen. Warren and a group of other labor leaders and members of Congress rolled out a "Take On Wall Street" initiative on Tuesday meant to expand upon some of the things Dodd-Frank has already accomplished, such as the $10.1 billion in consumer relief brought about by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Instead of rolling back regulations, Warren and her friend want to "use our democratic prerogative to make the high and mighty on Wall Street obey our interests."
O'Reilly Ignores Facebook Investigation That Found No Evidence Of Bias
By: Steve - May 26, 2016 - 10:00am
Does Facebook silence conservative voices?
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly says it does, even before the investigation was done. O'Reilly touched on the recent controversy surrounding Facebook's trending topics on his show recently.
His take? You're damn right Facebook is downplaying conservative voices.
"I have been saying this from the jump, you can't find conservative opinion on them," O'Reilly said during his show, "The O'Reilly Factor."
"I think that whole Internet is stacked against any kind of traditional conservative thought," O'Reilly said.
And now the facts, the facts O'Reilly ignored and did not report on, because he does not want you to know the truth, that he is wrong and he thinks everyone is biased against conservatives, even when they are not.
Facebook said its investigation showed that conservative and liberal topics were approved as trending topics at nearly identical rates. It said it was unable to substantiate any allegations of politically motivated suppression of particular subjects or sources.
The investigation was prompted by a letter from Republican Sen. John Thune earlier this month demanding that the company explain how it selects news articles for its "trending" list.
And with no evidence to back it up O'Reilly did a segment on it and slammed them for bias, even though he says he never speculates and only deals in the facts.
In his letter, Thune called on Facebook to respond to criticism that it suppressed conservative news and sought answers by May 24 to several questions about its internal practices.
"Any attempt by a neutral and inclusive social media platform to censor or manipulate political discussion is an abuse of trust and inconsistent with the values of an open Internet," Thune said. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg last week met with more than a dozen conservative politicians and media personalities to discuss issues of trust in the social network.
Corporate Lobbyists Are Behind GOP Opposition To New Overtime Laws
By: Steve - May 26, 2016 - 9:00am
If you want to know who runs the Republicans party, other than the NRA, it's the corporate lobbyists.
The Conservative Opposition To Overtime Pay Is Brought To You By The National Retail Federation.
The NRF Claims Overtime Expansion Will Demote Working Americans "To Clock-Punchers."
Pretty much all of the right-wing media and Republican politicians are slamming the Labor Department's decision to update and expand overtime protections, and they are clearly taking their cues from the National Retail Federation (NRF) -- a business association known for spreading lies about worker rights.
The NRF and its allies are portraying overtime expansion as something that will hurt workers and the economy, ignoring their own report, which found that the change would result in new jobs and fewer unpaid hours for retail workers.
The Department of Labor released an update to overtime rules for salaried employees on May 17, raising the minimum annual salary threshold to qualify for guaranteed overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,476 -- an announcement that was denounced by the right-wing media.
Conservative outlets claimed the rule was interfering with businesses and would result in less flexibility and possibly lower pay, citing the NRF's 2016 report Rethinking Overtime as proof, but they failed to acknowledge that the NRF has consistently opposed better pay for workers, fair scheduling, and collective bargaining rights.
Contrary to claims that the expanded overtime will harm the economy, the NRF's own report found the overtime rule would lead to over 117,100 new part-time jobs.
The Wall Street Journal decried the updated overtime rule in a May 18 editorial, claiming employers will lower salaries as a result. The Journal cited the NRF study, which found that businesses will "shift about a third of salaried retail and restaurant workers to hourly status" and bizarrely pointed to the study's finding that one in 10 workers on salary will work fewer hours (which are already unpaid) as proof that the rule is not in the best interests of employers or workers.
The conservative Townhall.com also pushed the false narrative that salaried workers working fewer unpaid hours is a negative, citing the NRF's report.
During the NRF's campaign against overtime expansion, the lobbying group has claimed the new rule is outrageous and will force employers "to demote their middle management professionals to clock-punchers."
On the May 18th edition of Fox News Special Report, NRF senior vice president David French called the rule a massive overreach. Earlier that day on Fox's America's Newsroom, correspondent Kevin Corke said the rule will mean "more red tape and fewer advancement opportunities" and falsely claimed that "most of the people impacted by this change will not see any additional pay."
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) echoed the NRF's statement on the May 19th edition of Fox Business Varney & Co., claiming the overtime rule imposes "more red tape on job creators, which translates into fewer opportunities for people."
In statements released May 18th, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) referred to the overtime rule as more red tape while House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) claimed it was an absolute disaster that will end up "hurting the very people it alleges to help."
Despite the coordinated attacks from conservative media outlets and politicians, overtime expansion is vitally important in a country where 50 percent of full-time workers already work more than 40 hours per week.
In an April op-ed, economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argued that many Americans are unaware that overtime protections have eroded over generations, and he noted that working unpaid overtime limits worker productivity and hiring. Reich also pointed out that the proliferation of unpaid overtime contributes to soaring corporate profits.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that overtime expansion will "reduce excessive hours of unpaid work" while adding at least 120,000 jobs in the retail sector -- the very one the NRF claims to represent. The rule change is also expected to change employer behavior; some employers will hire more workers, while other employers will become more efficient.
Employees in many instances work unnecessary hours because company cultures value "how much people work (or seem to)" instead of "the quality of their output," according to an article by professors Erin Reid and Lakshmi Ramarajan in the June 2016 edition of the Harvard Business Review.
The NRF has a history of pushing a right-wing, anti-worker agenda. The group opposes collective bargaining and fair scheduling, and was an outspoken opponent of increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour when the debate first gained prominence in 2014.
O'Reilly Is Clueless & He Has No Idea What Progressives Want
By: Steve - May 25, 2016 - 10:00am
First, I am a progressive and Bill O'Reilly is lying about what I want. He says the transgender bathroom policy from President Obama is designed to make Americans believe there is no difference in gender at all.
And that is ridiculous, it's nothing but lies and right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly. I believe there is a difference in gender, and I do not want anyone to think there is no difference in gender. The transgender bathroom policy is about equal rights for all and discrimination, and safety.
Bill O'Reilly is simply lying about the issue to make Republicans hate progressives even more.
Here is what the dishonest lying spin doctor O'Reilly said about it:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Factor follow-up segment tonight, the entire transgendered restroom issue is beyond crazy.
So according to this loony newspaper, if you have a young daughter, you should be accepting of the fact that a transgendered boy could shower next to her after an athletic exposition. That is insane. The solution to the problem is simple and has been going on for decades, private installations for people who are transgender. Joining us from Washington, Kirsten Powers. So do you understand how crazy The Charlotte Observer is?
KIRSTEN POWERS: No. I don't, actually.
O'REILLY: You don't.
POWERS: I read the editorial.
POWERS: Nothing about it seemed crazy to me.
POWERS: All I'm saying is I don't think it should bother you. I don't think this person is not preying on your daughter, this person is not a pervert, there is nothing is wrong with this person.
O'REILLY: It's not a matter of preying, it's a matter of being appropriate. You see, I'm glad you are coming on and I'm glad you said what you said. I had to interrupt because I wanted to steer you into the rights of the mass of people, which are being violated by this insane program.
POWERS: It's not insane.
O'REILLY: Yes, designed to make Americans believe there is no difference in gender at all.
POWERS: That's not what it's designed to do.
O'REILLY: Yes it is, of course it is. It's what the progressives want.
POWERS: No it's not and that's the way people who oppose this want to frame it because that's what they want to make it about that but it's not what it's about.
O'REILLY: To impose this kind of a situation to young children who don't understand transgendered or anything else - to impose it to the government impose it - is such a violation of parental rights, of children's rights, of everybody's rights.
GOP Benghazi Chairman Admits Investigation Was A Waste Of Time
By: Steve - May 25, 2016 - 9:00am
While we all agree that the attack on our embassy in Benghazi back in 2012 was a tragedy, I'm not sure if any rational person thought that, nearly four years later, there would still be ongoing investigations concerning what happened that evening.
Especially considering we've already had several investigations that have outlined to us what happened, all concluding that, while tragic, the attack itself was unlikely preventable.
We've known all of this for years. About a year and a half ago, a Republican-led investigation concluded that the absurd conspiracies and lies conservatives had been pushing about the attack for years were unfounded. Naturally, this meant that Republicans would simply order another investigation.
Well, a few days ago a story broke about a former three-star general specifically picked by Republicans to look into the investigation concluding that, like we've already known, there's likely nothing that could have been done to prevent the attack.
Now comes the news that Republican Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy essentially admitted that this whole investigation was a giant waste of time and money.
From USA Today:
There was nothing the military could have done on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, to stop the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but the special House committee investigating the terrorist incident will continue to probe the Pentagon's actions that night, the committee's chairman said Tuesday.This is why I've been saying for years that we need to hold hearings to investigate Republicans over this whole circus. When your party repeatedly orders investigations that continued to produce the same results, I think that party needs to be investigated for wasting that much time and money on pure nonsense.
We all know exactly what this has all been about: Keeping Benghazi around long enough, hoping they could use it against Hillary Clinton for this presidential election.
They sure didn't do a very good job of that last October. And it won't matter that, once again, they failed to produce any evidence to support any number of the asinine conspiracies the right has been pushing about this for years.
So I think once all of this is finally settled, we need some sort of committee established to investigate the Republican party so that we can look through their emails, memos and other forms of correspondence to find out what these folks were really saying behind closed doors -- and have them answer for the fact that they've wasted millions of dollars on exploiting a tragedy for partisan political gain.
Bill O'Reilly To Sue Ex-wife For $10 Million
By: Steve - May 24, 2016 - 11:00am
This shows exactly what a low-life a-hole Bill O'Reilly is, now the big jerk is going to sue his ex-wife. I normally do not wish bad on anyone, but if he were hit by a bus it would be a good thing, nothing he does helps anyone, he is just a lying right-wing hack who got rich off the backs of the suckers that believe his propaganda.
Bill O'Reilly is reportedly planning to sue his ex-wife for $10 million.
According to court documents obtained by Gawker, O'Reilly has accused Maureen McPhilmy of misleading him on the terms of their separation agreement.
In the same documents, O'Reilly claims McPhilmy used the money she obtained from their agreement "to finance an existing extra-marital relationship."
Gawker speculates that extramarital relationship is between McPhilmy and her now-husband Jeffrey Gross, who's a detective with the Nassau County Police Department on Long Island.
The outlet noted they started dating after O'Reilly and McPhilmy separated in 2010, but before their divorce was final. O'Reilly reportedly responded to news of their relationship by getting the police department to launch an internal investigation of Gross.
He also donated money to their police fund to try and get Jeffrey Gross in trouble, but it did not work. Sorry O'Reilly, money can not buy you everything.
Another filing reveals O'Reilly's attorneys have requested that all future filings related to this suit be kept under wraps. Neither he nor McPhilmy have yet to respond to requests for comment.
Fox News Liar Says Trump Would Never Back Down From A Debate
By: Steve - May 24, 2016 - 10:00am
Even though Trump has already backed out of two debates, and would have backed out of a third one if it had not been cancelled.
Fox's Eric Bolling: "You Want To Be President Of The United States? Donald Trump Wouldn't Back Down From A Debate"
Fox News co-hosts argued that unlike the GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton "would never" agree to a debate on Fox, forgetting that Trump has repeatedly backed out of debates during the GOP primaries -- including a debate on Fox News.
During a discussion on the possibility of conducting a Democratic debate hosted by Fox News on the May 18 edition of Fox's The Five, co-host Eric Bolling, argued that someone who wants to be president of the United States would not back down from a debate on Fox News, adding, "Donald Trump wouldn't back down from a debate like this."
But Donald Trump did back down from a Fox News debate in January.
Trump has also threatened to pull out of a CNN debate citing "one-sided and unfair reporting" from the network. Furthermore, a NBC debate was cancelled in March, after Trump said he would not attend because "I think we've had enough debates," and following critical editorials of Trump, ABC News dropped The New Hampshire Union Leader as a co-sponsor from a February Republican debate, which Trump took credit for.
And btw, when Trump says he got one-sided and unfair reporting, what that means is they reported actual bad news about him, it was not one-sided or unfair. Trump claims all the reporting in unfair to him, unless it's positive. If someone reports that the vast majority of women do not like him, based on actual polls that show it, Trump claims that is unfair reporting about him, when it is simply reporting the truth and the facts.
Additionally, The Five co-host Meghan McCain claimed that Clinton would never agree to a debate on Fox because she is scared to take questions from Fox host Bret Baier, claiming "she knows that Bret Baier ain't Rachel Maddow. She's going to have to answer some real questions and a lot of times she gets a lot of passes from the media."
Even though she has no clue if Hillary would do a debate on Fox or not, and she ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton did take questions from Bret Baier during a Fox News presidential town hall event in March in which Baier asked Clinton real questions.
Not to mention this, Hillary is asked as many tough questions by the media as Trump is, probably more. So Meghan McCain is clueless and a liar.
O'Reilly Says Only Trump Sycophants Can Cover Trump
By: Steve - May 24, 2016 - 9:00am
According to Bill O'Reilly, feminist journalists should not be allowed to report on Donald Trump because "Trump is the antithesis" of feminism.
By O'Reilly's standard, any journalist Trump may have offended would be disqualified from reporting on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
On the May 17th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly speculated on whether "the national media can cover Trump with any fairness," suggesting that editors should not let feminist journalists report on Trump because his past in the beauty pageant world would bias feminists against him.
Which ranks as one of the top 10 dumbest things O'Reilly has ever said. And goes back to my 16 year old question, how did this moron graduate from Harvard, did he cheat?
BILL O'REILLY: Trump is a beauty contestant purveyor. Do you let a feminist report on a beauty contestant person who is now turned politician?
O'REILLY: If I'm an editor and I know there is a feminist woman in my newsroom, I don't let her report on a guy like Trump because Trump is the antithesis of that. And so I don't want any margin of error here. There are plenty of reporters who can do the story.
Based on O'Reilly's warped and crazy logic, anyone who has reasons to find Trump's positions problematic is unfit to cover him. This standard disqualifies a lot of people:
-- Trump has referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers, so they're out.
-- Trump sent a culturally offensive tweet featuring a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo, so Hispanics would be disqualified from covering him.
-- Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. means Muslims can't cover him fairly.
-- Trump derided John McCain's status as a war hero because Trump likes "people who weren't captured." So cross off all the journalists who have been captured in conflict zones.
-- Since Trump suggested that women who have had abortions deserved "some form of punishment," any journalist who has had an abortion would be eliminated.
-- Trump mocked a disabled reporter with a congenital joint condition, so any journalist with a disability is off the list.
-- Also disqualified? climate scientists.
-- And broadly, women would be excluded, since he once said, "Women, you have to treat 'em like crap."
Under this argument, the only people left to cover Donald Trump would likely be those who made softball interviews of him their specialty, like Sean Hannity, those amplifying Trump's conspiracy theories like Alex Jones, or people who share a personal friendship with the candidate, like Bill O'Reilly.
Following O'Reilly's logic, the media's role of vetting, fact-checking and challenging a candidate, would become a thing of the past.
The Actual Facts About The New Obama Overtime Law
By: Steve - May 23, 2016 - 11:00am
Here are the actual facts on the new Obama overtime law, this shows why it was done, and why it was long overdue. Republicans and the corporate lobbyists are lying to you when they say it's a bad thing, because it is a great thing for American workers.
Here is what corporations have been doing for years, they hire someone who works for them a while and then they pay them more than the $455.00 a week minimum and call them a manager. Then they can make them work 50, 60, even 70 hours a week, and they do not get paid for overtime.
This is not only unfair, it's un-American. If you make $500.00 a week for 40 hours and you work 50 hours you still get $500.00 a week, if you work 60 hours you still get $500.00 a week, if you work 70 hours you still get $500.00 a week, it's ridiculous and something you expect in a communist country, not America.
Currently workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 must be paid at least time-and-a-half for each hour they work beyond 40 hours a week.
But the salary threshold under which workers are automatically eligible to receive overtime pay is a mere $23,660 a year (or $455 a week). Workers who make more than the threshold can be excluded from overtime pay if their jobs are determined to be executive, administrative, or professional. This easily allows employers to avoid paying overtime by simply giving workers manager titles and paying them just above the $23,660 annual threshold.
That will change on December 1st. The White House on Wednesday announced the final version of a new Department of Labor rule that would more than double the income threshold for overtime eligibility for salaried workers to $47,476 (or $913 a week), the first major increase to account for inflation that's happened in decades.
"This rule is necessary because, over the past four decades, updates to the so-called 'white collar exemption rules' have been infrequent and inadequate," Christine L. Owens, executive director of National Employment Law Project, a workers' rights advocacy organization, said during a press conference Wednesday.
As a result, she said, a mere 7% of salaried employees currently have guaranteed overtime pay protections, compared to more than 60% of salaried employees in 1979.
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, said the new overtime rule would bring that coverage closer to 23%, which is still far lower than it was in 1979.
While the Obama administration said the proposal will extend overtime pay to nearly 5 million workers within the first year of its implementation, Eisenbrey believes this number is a conservative estimate, and he puts the number of affected workers closer to 12.5 million, which is how many workers earn salaries between the old threshold of $23,606 and the new threshold of $47,476.
"All of them will have their rights improved," he said.
"They'll either be newly entitled to overtime pay when they never were before, or they will have their rights strengthened and clarified, because, frankly, most people think that, if you're paid a salary, you're not entitled to overtime," Eisenbrey said.
Because the salary threshold has been so low, Eisenbrey explains, employers have been able to render people exempt who shouldn't be by, for example, treating low-level assistant store managers or frontline store managers as executives.
These 12.5 million workers will benefit from the new rule, either by receiving time-and-a-half pay for any hours worked over 40 in a week, having their hours scaled back to 40 hours a week while still taking home the same pay, or getting a raise to put them above the threshold.
He also predicts that 100,000 more workers will benefit, as the overtime work will likely be shifted to either new employees or part-time employees who would not be working overtime. In fact, a study by Oxford Economics found that if the salary threshold were raised even to $808 a week, 76,000 part-time workers would be hired to fill the labor needs of businesses.
The new overtime rule would also automatically increase the threshold every three years, something Eisenbrey considers incredibly important. "The salary threshold will never erode again. We won't go through what we did -- a 29-year period at one point where the salary threshold was not improved. It won't take an act of political courage in the future," he said.
While the new rule has drawn criticism from business groups and Republicans, it has also been met with support.
"The system is rigged and people know it," said Bill Samuel, legislative director of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. "Taking this step to restore overtime is one of the many ways we're beginning to change the rules of our economy that are rigged in favor of Wall Street."
Insane OReilly Blames Freddie Gray's Death On His Lifestyle
By: Steve - May 22, 2016 - 11:00am
Not Police abuse, which is what it was. Here are some facts for O'Reilly, the facts he ignored.
Six Baltimore police officers pleaded not guilty in Freddie Gray's death, even though the autopsy says it was a homicide. O'Reilly ignores that to claim his lifestyle caused his death, instead of bad cops who roughed him up and he died from it.
The State Medical Examiner's Office declared Gray's death a homicide because officers failed to follow safety guidelines "through acts of omission," according to a copy of the report obtained by the newspaper.
The report provides a better picture of what happened to Gray, whom police put on his belly in the back of the van. Gray wasn't belted down, and he may have risen to his feet and then was slammed against an interior panel during an abrupt change in direction, according to the newspaper's account of the autopsy report.
With his ankles and wrists shackled, Gray was "at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van," according to the newspaper's summary of the report.
The police even have a name for it, in Baltimore, they call it a rough ride. In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice - a nickel ride, a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents. Other cities called them joy rides.
The slang terms mask a dark tradition of police misconduct in which suspects, seated or lying face down and in handcuffs in the back of a police wagon, are jolted and battered by an intentionally rough and bumpy ride that can do as much damage as a police baton without an officer having to administer a blow.
He died from a spinal injury, sustained while in police custody in Baltimore. The police even admitted that he was not strapped into a seatbelt, which is a violation of department policy.
O'Reilly never mentions any of this, and claims he only deals in the facts, in the so-called no spin zone. Then he speculates his ass off saying his lifestyle caused his death, which is just insane. The police gave him a rough ride and they went too far, then he died, that has nothing to do with his lifestyle, it's about Police abusing their power and going too far, that led to his death.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): It might be that the system is overwhelmed which it sounds like it is in Baltimore.
CLARENCE MITCHELL: No, it was not the system, it's a bad arrest.
O'REILLY: I think all Americans, no matter when a citizen dies like Freddie Gray did, it's never the citizen's fault in the sense that Freddie Gray didn't get up in the morning and say I'm going to do something and I'm going to die. But Freddie Gray's lifestyle for many years, led him to this terrible thing which is not only impacted him and his family but all the police officers and that lifestyle should be condemned. I mean, this narcotics trafficking is awful. It is devastating.
Hypocrite Trump Profits From The Companies He Slams In Public
By: Steve - May 21, 2016 - 11:00am
This is typical Donald Trump, say one thing in public, while in private making millions in investments from the very same companies he is slamming in public.
In public, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump rails against U.S. companies that outsource jobs overseas, like Nabisco, Carrier and Ford. He has called for a boycott of Apple and accused Disney of abusing the H1-B visa program to staff its resorts.
But in private, Trump is profiting from investments in the very same corporations he trashes on the campaign trail.
According to Trump's personal disclosure forms, released Wednesday, he earned about $1.1 million in the past year from investments in companies that he has publicly attacked.
Trump's most frequent targets include Nabisco, the Carrier Corporation, and Ford. The parent companies of Nabisco and Carrier have both outsourced hundreds of jobs to Mexico in recent months. Ford plans to build a new plant in Mexico's San Luis Potosí state, a plan Trump has called "a disgrace."
"Carrier and Ford and Nabisco need to know that there are consequences to leaving and firing people," Trump told a crowd in Indiana last month. "You can't just go to another country and make products to sell across our weak borders, because our borders will be so strong."
Trump's stake in Ford is worth between $500,000 and $1 million, according to his disclosure. He also pocketed as much as $20,000 in interest from his holdings in United Technologies and Mondelez International, the parent companies of Carrier and Nabisco, respectively.
In February, Trump called for a boycott of Apple after the company refused to break into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. "What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such a time as they give that security number," Trump told a crowd in South Carolina. "How do you like that? I just thought of it. Boycott Apple."
But of course Trump's proposed boycott did not apply to his own business with Apple, however -- or his use of their products. Trump's investments in the software and device giant have netted him between $100,000 and a million dollars in dividends and capital gains over the past year.
The earnings were part of an overall income that Trump claimed was $557 million, for a net worth that his campaign team claimed was more than $10 billion. The forms require candidates to list the value of their holdings as a range, with the top category being $50 million or more.
The financial disclosure came as Trump faces increased scrutiny over his refusal to release his tax returns. While not required by law, the tradition of presidential nominees releasing their tax returns dates back to the 1970's.
Trump says he will release his tax returns when the IRS completes a routine audit of his annual returns, but he won't say whether that will be before or after the November election. Trump claims that the current audit covers a whole decade's worth of returns, even those that are no longer being audited. The IRS has said that nothing the agency does prevents an individual from releasing his or her own tax returns.
Clinton Forces Scarborough To Correct Trump Lie About Libya
By: Steve - May 21, 2016 - 10:30am
And if she had not made them correct the Trump lie, Scarborough would have just let Trump lie and get away with it. Only after Clinton slammed Scarborough for letting Trump lie did they issue a correction.
The Hillary Clinton campaign stopped a Trump lie and a Trump enabler dead in their tracks by forcing Joe Scarborough to correct a lie that Trump said during a Morning Joe interview on the air.
Scarborough asked Trump if he would have stayed out of Libya. Trump answered, "I would have stayed out of Libya. I would have stayed out of Iraq too." At the time, Trump's lie generated no pushback from Joe Scarborough.
The Hillary Clinton campaign was listening and they forced Scarborough to correct Trump's lie on the air.
Trump lies about opposing Iraq, Libya. Gets zero pushback from MSNBC host.
Kudos, to @Morning_Joe for doing later correction of Trump on Libya. Took a response from Clinton campaign.
In the 2011 interview Trump says it is nuts that we do not go after Qaddafi in Libya, and he says he supports a Libya invasion. He also called it a horrible carnage and said we have soldiers all over the middle east that we should use to invade Libya. Scarborough did a correction and quoted Trump on it, proving he lied about opposing it.
If the Clinton campaign had not corrected the lie, Joe Scarborough would have happily allowed Trump to ignore the truth.
Matthews Highlights Trump's Libya Flip Flop On Morning Joe
By: Steve - May 21, 2016 - 9:30am
CHRIS MATTHEWS (HOST): During a phone interview this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said he would have stayed out of Libya back in 2011.
MATTHEWS: Well, but what Trump told Morning Joe this morning is the opposite of something he said in his own video blog back in February of 2011 itself. Right about the time the Obama administration was debating whether to intervene in that country. At that time, Trump said that the United States should go in and stop Muammar Gaddafi.
MATTHEWS: Well, here he is now in the present time, a man that is the new Donald Trump, the new model this year, anyway, at the campaign trail he called for less intervention in the world but he also calls himself the most militaristic, catch this, even more militaristic than George W. Bush. So, another angle to the man.
Elizabeth Warren To Donald Trump: I'm Right You're Wrong
By: Steve - May 20, 2016 - 11:30am
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday night resumed her stream of tweets directed at presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Warren, a fierce defender of the middle class, sent several tweets attacking Trump's meandering statements surrounding the federal minimum wage, and linked to a new PolitiFact article that calls a Trump claim "mostly false." The article examines Trump's back-and-forth opinions on the minimum wage and his assertion that Warren lied when she said he wanted to abolish it.
@realDonaldTrump got destroyed on his min wage position. I was right when I called him out.
-- Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) May 20, 2016
@realDonaldTrump made clear he would abolish the federal minimum wage. One of a million reasons why working ppl can't make him the boss.
-- Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) May 20, 2016
@RealDonaldTrump trolls for votes & wants working ppl to believe he's for them. News flash, Donald: working ppl are smarter than you think.
-- Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) May 20, 2016
Warren took to Twitter several times last week, seemingly unprompted, to chastise Trump's "dangerous" and "reckless" policy proposals, and his sexist treatment of women. She called out Trump's stances on student loan debt, financial industry regulation and Trump University.
Trump, in true Trump fashion, proceeded to mock Warren. He called her "Goofy Elizabeth Warren" and "one of the least effective senators" in history.
Warren's comments have drawn the attention of the Hillary Clinton campaign, including some who advocate Warren as a potential vice presidential running mate, according to a report from HuffPost's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim. Clinton and her aides were "thrilled to see Warren get under his skin," according to the report.
Warren ended her latest tweetstorm assuring Trump that his tirades wouldn't escape the notice of America's working class.
"News flash, Donald: working people are smarter than you think."
O'Reilly Solution To Transgender Issue Is Watch The Animal House Movie
By: Steve - May 20, 2016 - 11:00am
Here is more proof Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing loon, he says the solution to the transgender issue is for Obama, the Supreme Court, and Congress to watch the John Belushi movie Animal House, which is just stupid, and only something a moron would say.
And he said it during a total waste of time segment with the has-been un-funny former comedian Dennis Miller. Who is the same guy who said we should test a nuke to show the world we still have them, when asked about the radioactive fallout, he said just blow it up when the wind is blowing in the right direction.
They are both clowns, O'Reilly said this: "They really believe that equality means there shouldn't be any difference in gender."
No they don't, that is a lie. What they believe is that transgender people have equal rights, and they believe that if someone lives their entire life as a woman, even if they were born a man, they should be able to use the womens bathroom, because they live as a woman and they dress as a woman. That is what they believe you right-wing jerks.
Between O'Reilly and Miller they barely have one working brain, they are both clueless right-wing fools that have no business telling anyone what to do about anything.
O'Reilly Suggests The Movie Animal House Should Dictate Policy On Transgender Rights
Bill O'Reilly: Obama, SCOTUS, And Congress Should Watch Animal House, "And Then Afterward We'll Have A Big Discussion"
BILL O'REILLY: The Family Policy Institute of Washington State asked some students at Seattle University about gender.
O'REILLY: Again, that was a legitimate survey, not "Watters World." Joining us from Santa Barbara, the sage of Southern California, Dennis Miller. You know, things are different since we attended college, Miller?
DENNIS MILLER: I couldn't see anything else but the difference in college for four years.
O'REILLY: Me too.
MILLER: These kids can't see the forest for the lack of a tree, for God's sake. What, are they kidding me? You know what I see in that video, Billy? I see fear, honest to God. People will say, oh they're stupid. They're not stupid. Kids aren't stupid. Are they brainwashed a little? Yeah, sure they are. But mostly I see fear. If you say anything on a college campus now, you're going to be ostracized. They can't even listen to "Smoking in the Boy's Room" by Brownsville Station. It's got to be "Smoking in the Transroom." Nobody can do anything over there.
O'REILLY: But it is -- what I think is happening, and I think that's a pretty good analysis, is that they're scared. Alright, they don't want to say anything politically correct. They don't want to say, you know what? There is a pretty big difference between men and women. There's a difference in the way --
MILLER: You hope it's a big difference. You hope it's a big difference.
O'REILLY: Well, look, the difference is in the way they dress, the way they conduct themselves in the marketplace. Men are usually savages, where women are kind and gentle.
O'REILLY: But what I'm trying to get at here is, you're right, they're afraid. And you're right, they're not all as dumb as they look. But they really believe that equality means there shouldn't be any difference in gender. That's what it should be, Miller. That's what the rainbow pot is.
MILLER: Maybe I'm not smart enough to follow all of this, but I remember when I was in high school. And if you are going to give high school guys -- and I remember three or four lunatics in my high school -- a reason to show up at school one day and say they feel like women that day and they want to go into the girl's locker room, I can't exactly express specifically what's going to happen, but it ain't going to be pretty. It ain't going to be pretty.
O'REILLY: Well, here is my solution to this whole problem, that President Obama, the Supreme Court, and Congress should all gather in the nation's capital and be shown the movie Animal House. Alright? They should all have to watch the movie with your pal John Belushi, and then afterward we'll have a big discussion. Because there are differences between men and women, and people on both sides, there can be extremes.
Barron's Jack Hough Schools Fox Business Idiots On Obama Overtime Bill
By: Steve - May 20, 2016 - 10:00am
Millions Of Workers Will Be Guaranteed Overtime Pay Thanks To Updated Overtime Rule, thanks to President Obama. But of course all the propaganda stooges at Fox are saying it is a bad thing that will hurt corporations. But they ran into a truth teller, who schooled them with the facts and stopped their propaganda in it's tracks.
A Fox Business panel discussion about the Department of Labor releasing new rules on federal overtime pay regulations was caught off guard when one guest correctly pointed out that low-wage employers currently enjoy unfair "corporate welfare," which subsidizes their business model.
The new DOL stipulations mandate that employers pay overtime to qualifying salaried workers who make up to $913 per week, or $47,476 per year, which Fox Business contributor Elizabeth MacDonald and Host Stuart Varney predictably claimed would cost business and destroy jobs.
Varney quickly lost control of the conversation to Barron's editor Jack Hough who praised the new rule while arguing that a lack of overtime protections amounts to letting low-wage employers "reach both hands into my pockets" to pay employees whose poverty wages force them to seek government assistance.
From the May 18th edition of Fox Business Varney & Co.
STUART VARNEY (HOST): President Obama's new overtime pay rules, actually, do you know that they go into effect today? What's this going to cost business?
ELIZABETH MACDONALD: So, $12 billion over the next decade, that's what the Labor Department says. The overtime kicks in if you make about 47,500 bucks and you work more than 40 hours a week, you will get overtime now, according to these new rules.
Who does it hit? Retail, restaurant businesses, they make a lot -- create a lot of the jobs in this country. So what could happen? Will the guys who run these businesses say, "you know what, I'm going to keep my overtime the same?" Could it cost jobs?
VARNEY: Jack Hough is still here. He is making all kinds of noises because I know -- I know -- he believes in a much higher minimum wage, and more overtime pay.
JACK HOUGH: Somewhat higher. Here is where I turn into a pinko commie, as you say --
ASHLEY WEBSTER: A bed wetter.
HOUGH: A bed wetter, of course.This is not -- you are talking about this as a cost to business. Really, it's a transfer of money from business to workers, right? The issue is, this should be a conservative cause, right?
When we have all these companies that are paying workers below a living wage. What happens? The workers go and they apply for federal benefits. They get tax credits. In effect, McDonald's is reaching both hands into my pockets and taking part of its payroll cost -- that shouldn't happen.
We shouldn't have so much corporate welfare in the form of low-wage workers who have to go and collect an Earned Income Tax Credit that I pay for. Profits are at an all-time high, worker wages are low, it's time for companies to pay their own payroll costs instead of coming to me.
MACDONALD: Interesting take.
WEBSTER: Interesting point, it's --
VARNEY: I'll give him that.
HOUGH: The reality is that the 20th Century, in America, the greatest sustained period of wealth creation the world has ever seen -- we had a high minimum wage, we had overtime pay.
VARNEY: That's a very good point you raised.
Clinton: It's Time For People To Stop Listening To Republican Propaganda
By: Steve - May 20, 2016 - 9:00am
HOPKINSVILLE, Ky. -- Hillary Clinton fired back at a woman who stood during a rally Monday to disagree with a line in Clinton's stump speech about Kentucky’s Republican Gov. Matt Bevin.
The exchange unfolded as Clinton discussed improvements that had occurred in the state on issues such as education, implementing the Affordable Care Act and lowering the unemployment rate -- all of which she attributed to Bevin's predecessor, Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear.
"Your governor did such a great job and your current governor is trying to undo it all," Clinton said, referring to Bevin and Beshear.
But the woman, who had been sitting quietly in the audience, stood and shouted toward Clinton: "That is not true."
"Oh yes it is, yes it is," Clinton responded before adding hotly: "You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts!"
The crowed roared, some people leaving their chairs to cheer and hold up their Clinton signs.
Suddenly, the woman's outburst had become a referendum on voters who disregard the truth in making their political decisions.
Clinton invited the woman to come up to the rope line after the event to explain what was on her mind, because very little could be heard over the boom of Clinton's amplified voice and the applause and cheering from the crowd.
But Clinton wasn't finished.
"I'll tell you what the truth is, and it's time that people stop listening to Republican propaganda!" she added.
As Beshear stood watching from the sidelines, Clinton noted that "hundreds of thousands" of working Kentuckians have health care because of the Medicaid expansion during his governorship.
"And I'll tell you something else," she said. "If the current governor has his way and Medicaid is cut back or eliminated as it was expanded, it's going to cost you rural hospitals, rural health clinics -- a lot of people who have insurance are going to find their access less than it is, because of the way that your governor in the past expanded affordable health care."
"We can't have the kind of debate that we need when people don't learn the facts," she added.
Factor Guest Makes A Great Point To O'Reilly
By: Steve - May 19, 2016 - 11:50am
During a discussion about Hillary Clinton slamming Trump for his treatment of women, O'Reilly showed once again what a biased right-wing hypocrite he is. In the past O'Reilly has said you must not attack the family, only the candidate, he said that after some Democrats went after the Bush kids, and other family members of candidates.
O'Reilly used to say the family of a candidate is off limits.
But now that Hillary is running for President O'Reilly has changed the rules, and even compared her attacks on Trump about women to Trump going after Bill Clinton.
O'Reilly said if Hillary slams Trump over women, then Trump has a right to go after Bill Clinton. Even though Bill Clinton is not the candidate, he is part of the family. And the comparison is bogus, because she is slamming the candidate Trump, he can go after Bill, who is not the candidate.
Wednesday night O'Reilly had the political reporter Emily Shire on to discuss it, and she said it was unfair for Trump to go after Bill Clinton because he is family, not the candidate. And O'Reilly just ignored her, then he said it was ok for Trump to go after Bill if Hillary plays the woman card.
Which is ridiculous, and just another example of the bias and hypocrisy from O'Reilly, he has two sets of rules, one for Republicans and one for Democrats. He is a massive hypocrite and a biased right-wing hack who is as biased as Limbaugh, Coulter, or Hannity.
Remember This When The November Presidential Election Is Over
By: Steve - May 19, 2016 - 11:30am
Wednesday night on May 18th, 2016 Bill O'Reilly said this:
"Trump only needs to gain 10% more of the womens vote to get into the White House."
I am not kidding, O'Reilly actually said that. Even though it is just laughable, because even if he did pull a miracle and gain 10% more of the womens vote by November, he would still lose the election.
Hillary Clinton is crushing Trump with Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and on and on. Trump is only winning white men, and that's it.
Trump is at 11% with Latinos, Romney got 27% of the Latino vote and he got killed by Obama 330 to 206. So Trump has no chance to win, zero. Remember this after the election when Hillary Clinton is thanking the voters for making her the next President.
And btw, as of right now www.270towin.com has Hillary Clinton with 320 electoral votes to 139 for Trump. It's not even close, Hillary is crushing Trump like a bug, and O'Reilly never reports any of this information.
Larry Sabato has it at 347 for Clinton to 191 for Trump.
And Nate Silver, the Presidential Election guru says Clinton has a 75% chance to beat Trump.
O'Reilly & MacCallum Once Again Promote Right-Wing Campus Reform
By: Steve - May 19, 2016 - 11:00am
This the 2nd time they have promoted the conservative group, without disclosing the fact that they are a known biased conservative group. They even stated that they look for bias on college campuses, and at least this time they said they sort of lean to the right.
Which is a lie, they do not just lean right, they are far-right and only look for liberal bias, they do not look for conservative bias. They even prove it on their website.
Here are two quotes from their resources page:
Are you a conservative student activist looking to make a difference on your campus? If so then the Leadership Institute is here to help you.
Click here to see all the resources that the Leadership Institute's Campus Leadership Program has available for student activists.
Leftist Abuse and Bias Guide
Don't know where to start when identifying liberal bias on your campus? This guide contains a list of the most common biases that occur on college campuses to help inspire you.
Click here for the Leftist Abuses and Bias on Campus guidebook from the Leadership Institute's Campus Reform.
Campus Reform is a biased conservative group, and that is a fact. It's a group of conservative college kids who are trying to make colleges look bad by claiming there is massive liberal bias, while ignoring all the conservative bias, including groups like they have.
They are biased and anything they do is not objective, but O'Reilly never discloses any of this. He airs their biased reports as if they are a non-partisan group, when he knows that is not true. And it's just more proof O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased Republican by doing reports like this.
Media Figures Slam Megyn Kelly For Softball Trump Interview
By: Steve - May 19, 2016 - 10:00am
On May 17, Megyn Kelly interviewed presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in a Fox Broadcast Network TV special called Megyn Kelly Presents. And boy was it ever a softball interview, almost everyone outside of Fox is slamming her for the fluff interview.
CNN's Bill Carter: "If It Had Been Any Softer, It Would Come On A Cone With A Swirl."
NY Times James Poniewozik: All Megyn Kelly "Threw Were Airballs."
NPR's Jessica Taylor: "Megyn Kelly Asking Donald Trump About His Twitter Habits As He Live Tweets This Pre-Recorded Interview. This. Election."
The Washington Free Beacon's David Rutz: "This Interview Is Useless Fluff. The Word 'Tweet' Has Been Uttered About 50 Times."'
Erik Wemple: "So Now Kelly Is Yukking It Up With Trump About His Hate-Tweeting? Am I Really Seeing This?" And "So This Is What Megyn Kelly Went To Trump Tower To Set Up?"
Washington Examiner's Jim Antle: "Pretty Cool To Be Able To Get Donald Trump To Star In A Commercial For Your Book."
Washington Examiner's T. Beckett Adams: "That Was It? This Was What They Hyped For Weeks?"
Allahpundit: "It Was Nice Of Trump To Help Kelly Monetize Those Months Of Nasty Attacks On Her."
Slate's Isacc Chotiner: “This Megyn Kelly Interview Of Trump Is So Bad And So Soft That If I Were Fox News I Would Worry About CNN Trying To Poach Her."
Republicans Own Investigator Debunks Entire Benghazi Witch Hunt On Hillary
By: Steve - May 19, 2016 - 9:00am
And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this story, because he is nothing but a right-wing hack who supports the Republican lies about Benghazi.
Did you know that the Republicans are still investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, four years after it happened. I could say I'm shocked, but I'm not, and I predicted they would go to great lengths to keep this nonsense going until 2016, hoping to use it against Hillary Clinton before the election.
Even a year and a half ago when a Republican-led investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing - GOP leaders simply ordered another investigation.
This, of course, led to the now infamous 11-hour grilling Clinton withstood last October where all Republicans really did was make her look very presidential. Even many within the conservative media said Clinton walked away from that stunt looking stronger than ever.
Then I was stunned (Not!) when Republicans announced last year that they didn't expect to release their findings until sometime around the 2016 presidential election. I'm sure nobody saw that coming, except ummmm, everyone.
Every rational person in the country has known from the beginning that this Benghazi propaganda coming from Republicans has been nothing but their way to try to hurt Clinton's chances in 2016.
Well, another bombshell came out on Monday when it was reported that former three-star Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman, who was specifically picked by Republicans to investigate this, concluded that there was nothing that could have been done differently to have changed or altered the outcome of the attack.
As reported by Right Wing Watch:
While interviewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in January, the then-chief counsel acknowledged, "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed."This should not really be news considering every single investigation that's been conducted on Benghazi has essentially concluded the same exact thing.
The question I have is when do we launch an investigation into the Republican party over this complete and total waste of taxpayer money?
They have literally wasted millions of dollars on what's been nothing more than a very elaborate political stunt aimed at trying to slander the person who most people believed is going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.
Not only that, but Republicans have blatantly exploited and politicized this tragedy and the deaths of these people, all for political purposes.
While I'm sure it won't happen, I really do believe that once this circus is wrapped up there needs to be an investigation into the GOP and everything that went into wasting so much time and money exploiting a deadly tragedy all for the sake of a petty, partisan political witch hunt.
Five Things That Prove Republicans Are Lying About President Obama
By: Steve - May 18, 2016 - 11:00am
And O'Reilly is as bad as the rest of the Republicans, because he is constantly lying about Obama, and the job he has done. O'Reilly says he has been a terrible President and that the economy is in chaos, even though he has done a good job and the economy is doing good.
To begin with, here is a message for Bill O'Reilly. We are in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job growth in our nation's history, creating over 13 million jobs in that span while unemployment is around 5 percent (lower than at any time during Reagan's eight years).
But of course, Bill O'Reilly never reports that information.
I am betting that history is going to look back on Obama as one of our best presidents. I also think he will go down as one of the least appreciated presidents due to the fact that there are so many Republicans in this country who, no matter what he does, simply want to believe he's been one of our worst - even if facts don't remotely support that insane belief.
Now more than ever people wrap themselves up in bubbles of confirmation bias where the only facts or reality they seem to care about are sources of information that do nothing but tell them what they want to hear whether or not it's true.
Meanwhile, any source that doesn't tell them what they want to believe is real is dismissed, blocked, unliked or unfollowed.
So I thought I would list 5 things to prove why President Obama will go down as one of our best and least appreciated presidents.
1. He led the country back from the brink of collapse:
In this country, our political memories are absurdly short. There are people who literally believe the country is worse off now than when President Obama took office in January 2009. You know, when we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every single month and unemployment was skyrocketing toward 10 percent.
People forget just how bad things were (and how they were getting worse under Bush). Yet in just a few months he had cut our job losses in half and in just over a year we began this historic streak of private sector job growth. As I've said before, if Obama were white and a Republican O'Reilly and the right-wingers would be worshipping him like they do Reagan.
2. On his watch, we found and killed Osama bin Laden:
Obama dedicated more resources to Afghanistan which ultimately led to our military killing the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Not only that, but he still had to order the raid which was somewhat controversial considering it consisted of going into Pakistan without alerting anyone.
He did in just over two years what George W. Bush failed to do in nearly eight - he got the monster responsible for the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. Again, if he were white and a Republican, this would be another reason why they would worship him like they do Reagan.
3. We've made huge strides on social issues, equality and health care reform:
While there's still a long way to go, we've seen huge strides reached during Obama's time in office as it relates to reforming our health care system, how our law enforcement officials behave and gay rights. Just a few years ago people with pre-existing conditions could be discriminated against, body cameras on police officers were not remotely being discussed, same-sex marriage was still illegal in most places and gay Americans couldn't openly serve in our military.
Gay Americans can finally be open about who they are while defending this country, while all members of the LGBT community are now allowed to legally marry the person they love. People who were born with illnesses can no longer be denied health care and crooked police officers are finally being held accountable.
4. We've laid a solid foundation for moving the United States toward using renewable energy sources to combat climate change:
Of course there's still plenty of work that needs to be done to combat climate change, but President Obama has made a huge part of his presidency a focus on developing new green energy sources and moving the country away from fossil fuels.
Sure, the recent climate deal that was struck doesn't go nearly far enough - but it's a huge step in the right direction. This president has this country on the right path toward a much greener energy future that could very well help save this planet. The only thing that could undo all of this progress is if liberals fail to show up and vote in November.
5. He's done all that while facing unprecedented obstruction:
The moment President Obama won in 2008, the GOP essentially decided that, no matter he wanted, they were going to oppose it, simply because he is a black Democrat. We've never seen a president face such congressional obstruction as Obama has. Since 2010, our Republican majority Congress has been mostly worthless.
And Republicans have been rather open about the fact that their main goal in Congress has been to block anything this president supports. While what Republicans have done during his time in office has technically been legal - sometimes their behavior has bordered on near treason as many within the GOP blatantly tried to undermine or sabotage this president all for the sake of putting partisan politics ahead of the country.
It's a testament to how great he's been that he's managed to accomplish this much based upon the fact that, at every turn, Republicans have done everything they possibly can to block him.
But despite everything I just listed, many people in this country have taken him for granted. That's why I believe his approval rating seems to be going up the more people get a look at the folks who could ultimately replace him.
I'm sure the Republican trolls who read this will be spouting off every spoon-fed talking point they have ever heard from O'Reilly and Fox News since 2008. Then again, these are the same folks who decided to nominate Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee.
Brit Hume Proves Once Again That He Is A Right-Wing Loon
By: Steve - May 18, 2016 - 10:00am
And O'Reilly puts this nut on his show as if he is some objective journalist who knows what he is talking about, when in fact he is nothing but another far-right idiot who constantly spews out right-wing propaganda. With no guest on for balance, he is always on alone to say whatever he wants, and nobody ever says he is wrong.
Here are the two stupid things Hume said Monday night.
Hume: Science Says Caitlyn Jenner "Might Not Qualify" As Being "Transgendered"
If Science Is A Determining Factor, "You Really Don't Become Transgendered Until You've Had Some Sort Of Physical Metamorphosis"
BRIT HUME: This standard by which one becomes transgendered seems to be a little vague and hard to pin down. I mean, are you transgender because you have had surgery to change your sexual makeup, your body parts?
Or are you transgendered because you decide at a given moment that you would prefer to be a member of the sex into which you were not born? One might argue that this is, you know, something that the Democrats always claimed the Republicans are, they are always saying Republicans are anti-science.
Well, if science and biology is a -- science is a determining factor here, you really don't become transgendered until you had some sort of physical metamorphosis, in which your anatomy is changed. So, Caitlin Jenner for an example, would though she clearly prefers the idea that she is a woman, might not qualify that way.
I think it's very odd to think of the possibility of people with the opposite sex's body parts taking showers in the locker room of the other sex. It just seems to me to be something that people will find very strange and not welcome.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): OK, but that's the key, whether Americans -- once they understand that there really isn't any litmus test, there aren't any guidelines from the Departments of Justice or Education about what you just raised, who can do what, what is a medical doctor involved? Does the doctor have to certify?
None of that. It's basically a P.C. whim. But in this age where political correctness has really taken firm root in this country, I'm not sure whether Americans give a hoot anymore. They just don't.
The insane Brit Hume also said that Obama should share credit for the improving economy with the Bush administration, which is just laughable. This is the same Bush administration that crashed the economy, crashed the banking system, crashed the housing market, crashed the jobs market, and crashed the stock market. Obama took over and fixed it all, and Bush gets no credit for any of it, except for credit for ruining the country and almost putting us into a 2nd great depression that took 2 or 3 years to fix.
And btw, the Republicans claim the economy is terrible and a disaster, O'Reilly even says it is in chaos. So how can Hume claim the economy is improving, did he go senile and forget the GOP propaganda talking points are to lie that the economy is terrible and in chaos?
BAIER: Brit, you've heard President Obama say he doesn't think -- President Obama or his administration got enough credit for saving the economy from what was a corrupt, collapsing situation when he took office.
HUME: Well, a couple things about that, it's worth remembering the president was sworn in on January 20, 2009. The economy began to grow again, signaling the end of the recession in June. That was before the stimulus legislation that he rammed through Congress with the help of Democrats controlling both houses had begun to take effect.
The things that had taken effect, the Fed's action on interest rates, the much despised bailouts and loans that helped keep certain enterprises on their feet, they had been put in place in previous administrations and continued by the president. So, the credit for rescuing the economy, if it belongs with government, has got to be shared, at least.
And one more thing, market economy's recover from recessions because that's what they do. People go to work every day trying to make their enterprises grow again, that's where I suspect smart people would think most of the credit lies.
Elizabeth Warren Laughs At Trump's Wimpy Insults
By: Steve - May 18, 2016 - 9:00am
Elizabeth Warren fired back at GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who called her "goofy."
Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts and a legal scholar at Harvard Law, laid into Trump on his favorite medium, Twitter, even deploying some of his own tactics against him.
WARREN: "I called out Donald Trump on Tuesday. 45 million saw it. He's so confident about his 'counter punch' he waited until Friday night. Lame," Warren tweeted.
In response to Warren's Twitter comments, Trump called her "goofy," which Warren laughed at in an interview posted by Policy Mic on Wednesday.
"Really? That's the best you could come up with?" Warren said. "I thought Donald Trump said he was a guy who was good with words."
In the interview, Warren also warned that electing Donald Trump will only result in more economic inequality than ever.
"I think it will be more of a government that works for a thin slice at the top, and a government that leaves everyone else behind," she said.
"And the problem with that is it's not just government. Government becomes the tool then to have the economy work that way. So increasingly we live in a world where the economy works for a narrower and narrower slice of America."
She added that Washington "works great" if you can afford an army of lobbyists and lawyers and make large campaign contributions. Which Trump is now getting, even though he said he would not take campaign donations from the lobbyists and the wealthy.
Trump has lied or flip flopped on everything he has ever said, and if you vote for this clown there is something wrong with you, that is especially meant for Republicans. You better think about voting for Trump, because he is not a real conservative, and if you vote him into the White House he might just stab you in the back by passing liberal plans.
Republican Governor Caught Lying To Congress & O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - May 17, 2016 - 11:00am
In fact, to this day Bill O'Reilly has still not said one word about the Flint Michigan water crisis story, not a word. Which is an outrage, for a so-called journalist to not have even had one segment on the story. Especially when we all know that if the Governor was a Democrat O'Reilly would be all over this story, and he would have already called for his impeachment.
Now the Governor has been caught lying to Congress, and O'Reilly is still ignoring the story. He said he did not delete any emails, and that he was working closely with the Mayor of Flint, and we now know he was lying in both statements, he now admits he deleted some emails and the Mayor says he is not working closely with her, in fact, she says he is not working with her at all.
House Oversight members have released written responses to questions from Congress to Gov. Rick Snyder about the Flint Water Crisis, and the Governor's responses reveal that he lied during his Congressional testimony.
The House Oversight Committee Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said this in a statement:
The Governor's written answers to the Committee raise a whole new set of concerns about the accuracy of his testimony before Congress in March. We already knew his testimony was misleading when he claimed he was working closely with the Mayor of Flint--at the same time he was uttering those words, he was withholding from the Mayor a plan to address the crisis he had been working on for weeks.And btw, when a political person says he can not recall something, that is what the lawyers tell them to say when they do not want to give answers that would get them in trouble.
As Rep. Cummings said, Gov. Snyder is taking actions that are impeding Congress's ability to properly investigate the Flint water crisis. Rep. Matt Cartwright called out Snyder for his failure to take any real responsibility for what happened in Flint.
The poisoning of the residents of an American city (and doing nothing to stop it after finding out) was a criminal act. Gov. Snyder is trying hard to cover his tracks. Rep. Cummings and fellow Democrats need to press for Snyder to appear in front of Congress again because Gov. Snyder must be held accountable for what happened to the children of Flint, Michigan.
O'Reilly Does Insane Biased Segment On The Homeless In San Francisco
By: Steve - May 17, 2016 - 10:00am
This was one of the most ridiculous and biased segments I have ever seen O'Reilly do, it was just laughable. He did a segment on the homeless in San Francisco with some old Republican party woman, Christine Hughes, leader of the city's Republican Party, with no opposing guest for balance, just her and O'Reilly, and it was a clown show.
She said it was out of control and a public safety issue, and that they spend $30,000 to $60,000 a year per homeless person. Which is insane, for that much they could buy each one of them a house. She even said that recently a homeless man dropped his pants and urinated on her, and that there was nothing she could do about it.
Really? Nothing? How about this, if you see a man drop his pants near you and start to urinate on you, WALK AWAY! Run away! The last thing to do is stand there and let the man urinate on you, that's just stupid.
She said she could not call the police because they would not do anything, which is also ridiculous, and even O'Reilly told her she should have called 9-11. But I would say when someone tries to urinate on you, walk away from them. You need mental help if you just stand there.
O'Reilly then asked the dumbest question in the history of journalism, he asked her if that was the norm now in San Francisco. Are you freaking kidding me, really O'Reilly? Yeah Bill that is the norm now, all the homeless people in San Francisco now urinate on everyone and they just stand there and let them, it's the norm, not!
This was the dumbest segment in the history of journalism, what good did it do, and why was it even done, what was the point. All it did was make O'Reilly and Hughes look like idiots, and if she is going to let a man urinate on her, maybe she likes that kind of thing, because if it was me I would run as soon as the guy dropped his pants.
The last thing I am going to do is stand there and let some guy urinate on me. And the funniest part is that O'Reilly put this nut on his show to do this ridiculous non-news segment. It was a total waste of time, except to give us a good laugh and wonder if something is wrong with Hughes for letting the man urinate on her. And that is if the story is true, which I doubt it is.
O'Reilly Ignored Trump Fake PR Guy Story
By: Steve - May 17, 2016 - 9:00am
Donald Trump was clearly busted acting as his own fake PR guy, and O'Reilly ignored the entire story. Even though pretty much every other news outlet in America reported on it. O'Reilly ignored it because he has a bias for Trump, and he is his friend.
Everyone knows it was Trump, and he even admitted it was him in one interview years ago, but Trump recently lied about it anyway, and even hung up on some reporters when they asked about it, then refused to talk to them any more, like a 5 year old would do.
If that was a Democrat who did it O'Reilly would do half the show on it and play clips from the tape, but not only did O'Reilly not play any of the tape, he ignored the entire story to cover for his friend. And when people call him out for his Trump bias he claims they are crazy, when they are exactly right.
Donald Trump hung up on reporters in the middle of an interview and then had his secretary say that he was unable to take their call after he was asked if he ever employed "John Miller" which is one of the names that Trump used when he acted as his own fake PR person.
Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporters who were 44 minutes into a phone interview with Trump about his finances asked him a question about Miller: "Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?"
The phone went silent, then dead. When the reporters called back and talked to Trump's secretary, she said, "I heard you got disconnected. He can't take the call now. I don't know what happened."
What happened is Trump didn't want to answer the question, so he hung up the phone and then told his secretary to tell the Post reporters that he was busy when they called back.
What's really stupid is that if Trump just admitted it was him it would have been a one day almost non-story, by lying that it was not him (when everyone knows it was) he makes it worse and turned the one day story into a week long story (or longer) that makes him look like a fool.
And btw, how come nobody at Fox News has done a voice analysis on the tape to see if it is Trump or not. Because they know it is, and they did not want to prove it because it would make him look bad. For that matter, how come nobody at CNN or MSNBC has done it either, most likely because they already know it's Trump.
Trump also gave a strange answer when asked if it was him, he said it does not sound like him. Which is not the answer you would give if it was not you, what you would say is that is not me, no way no how, instead he says oh it does not even sound like me. Even though it sounds exactly like a young Donald Trump, he even speaks like Trump using the same words like tremendously, and we all know it was him.
Trump is a liar who makes bad decisions under stress, do you really want that clown in the White House?
O'Reilly & The GOP Are Lying About The So-Called NC Bathroom Bill
By: Steve - May 16, 2016 - 11:00am
O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are freaked out over President Obama saying states and schools must let transgender people use the bathroom they want to, which is men who are dressed as and mostly a woman using the womens bathroom, or women who are mostly men using the mens bathroom.
These people live and dress as the opposite sex, a man dresses as a woman and a woman dresses as a man. It is not about a boy in high school suddenly showing up to school in a dress to get into the girls bathroom or locker room, and the idiots who say it is, are lying to you, which is O'Reilly and the Republicans.
To begin with here is what it means to be transgender. Transgender means someone whose gender differs from the one they were given when they were born. Transgender people may identify as male or female.
In order to express their chosen gender, transgender people may transition, or change, from the gender they were given at birth. They may change their names, pronouns or style of dress. Some transgender people also choose a medical transition, with the help of medical specialists, who will prescribe hormones and/or surgery.
Can you imagine being a transgender man, you dress and act like a woman, you take female hormones and you live as if you were born a woman, some even have medical operations that give them breasts and they have their male body parts removed and replaced with female body parts. So they are basically a woman, but under the NC law they would be forced to use the mens bathroom.
So this transgender man who is dressed as a woman, would have to use the mens bathroom. This will cause problems, and could lead to them getting beat up or worse. Now here is where it gets crazy, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW?
Are they going to put a security guard outside of every bathroom in the state and check to see if someone in transgender or not? How do they check them, will they force them to drop their pants, or lift their skirt?
It's just insane, and IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. What they should do is stop passing these bathroom bills and leave them alone.
And btw, North Carolina wrote, passed, and signed into law the most anti-LGBT measure of the past decade--and it was all based on a lie.
The state has undone not just local ordinances protecting transgender people, but all LGBT nondiscrimination provisions across the state. Literally overnight, people in Charlotte and across North Carolina can now be fired from their jobs for being gay, turned away at hotel chains for being gay, and even forced to show their genitals to a police officer if the cop thinks they might be transgender.
The backers of this bill are liars, including Bill O'Reilly. They are cynically creating and exploiting public fears to score points with their base, raise money, and win victories against LGBT people in areas of employment and public accommodations--victories they know they couldn't get if they attacked the issue honestly.
Surely, by now, the national groups behind this legislation--the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association--are fully aware that they are lying. They know that there is not a single case on record of a man taking advantage of a nondiscrimination bill, dressing up as a woman, being allowed into a women's restroom, and sexually assaulting someone.
In reality, the law was passed by anti-gay Republicans so they can discriminate against gay and transgender people. But O'Reilly never tells you this, because he is with them and he supports the anti-gay law.
These bills are written to weasel around the Supreme Court's ruling in Romer v. Evans that LGBT people cannot be singled out for discrimination. Bigots do that by avoiding any mention of LGBT people, and simply say that no municipality can enact a nondiscrimination ordinance stricter than state law.
The North Carolina law definitely violates Title IX, the federal education nondiscrimination law, as that law has been interpreted by courts. That means it jeopardizes $4.5 billion in federal education funding that North Carolina receives.
There is no problem with transgender men trying to get into the womens bathrooms or locker rooms, it is all a lie from the far-right, they use the lie to justify discrimination against gay people. And O'Reilly is helping them by lying about it on his show. They should just leave them alone and let them use the bathroom they want and there would be no problems, and it can not be enforced anyway, so it's a ridiculous un-needed law.
Veteran Teacher Explains How O'Reilly & Watters Scammed Him
By: Steve - May 16, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is a perfect example of what Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Watters do, they interview people, then use a small part of what they said and take it out of context to make it look like they agreed with their wrong and right-wing view on the issue.
They take a 15 minute interview and use 2 minutes of it, and misrepresent what they guy was saying. So it looks like he agreed with O'Reilly, when he did not agree with him. This also shows how dishonest O'Reilly is, and why I say you can not believe anything you hear from O'Reilly, or his guests.
And btw folks, O'Reilly has said over and over a million times that his show is never edited, ever. Which is a lie, because I have example after example of edited segments he has done, and the Jesse Watters segment is edited every week, he never shows everything the people he talks to say, it is always edited down from 15 or 20 minutes, to a 2 to 3 minute pieced together short video.
Not to mention this, the O'Reilly Factor is not on the air live. O'Reilly tapes the show during the day and then runs it later at night. This allows him to edit it, and remove things he does not like, which he does all the time, despite the fact that he says the show is never edited, he is lying, and it is edited all the time, I even have proof of it.
And btw, this segment was about student violence in schools, O'Reilly claims it is out of control, getting worse, and chaos. Mr. Strauss, who is a 25 year Teacher and wrote a book on it, disagreed with that, so he was on the Factor to talk about it.
Here is what one Teacher said about doing the Factor, Bill O'Reilly, and Jesse Watters.
By Larry Strauss, Veteran high school teacher and basketball coach; author, 'Students First and Other Lies'
When I opened an email from Fox New's Jesse Watters I was wary. Bill O'Reilly's sidekick (not sure what else to call him) said that my book (Students First and Other Lies) had come up on a search about high school violence and that he wanted to interview me about school violence and student behavior problems.
I warned Watters that if he and O'Reilly intended to advance the tired thesis that kids are running amok in our schools I was the wrong person to interview. If they wished to attack those who are promoting restorative justice -- an attempt to stop criminalizing student misbehavior -- that I would be their adversary.
I warned Watters that I would say these things and he said that was great. My wife warned me -- don't believe them, she said. She told me I was being used. I said that I understood the risks of going on camera for Fox News but that I felt sure I could stand up to whatever they threw at me.
I wasn't going to duck from the right-wing propaganda machine. I would stand up for my students and other inner-city students, boys especially, who need to be disciplined and enlightened without being criminalized.
So I went to their L.A. studio for a taped interview with Jesse Watters. The interview lasted about 15 minutes and covered a range of issues, including the conditions of schools, the importance of trust of concern between teacher and students, the importance of stability -- teacher and administrative longevity -- and an understanding of the challenges that many of our students face.
If Jesse Watters was disappointed by my answers -- and in retrospect I have to believe he was -- then he did not let on. He asked me if I thought things were getting worse and I said that I did not think so.
I said that sometimes the parents of my students suggest they are getting worse and sometimes those parents are my former students and I'm amused at their amnesia about what they were like in school. I said that teenagers have been misbehaving for a very long time. Since the Ancient Greeks -- and probably before that.
Almost nothing I said made it into the five minute segment that aired a few nights later.
The segment was dominated by two other teachers who support the O'Reilly narrative that students are bad. I empathize with those colleagues and their struggles but there is no mention about administrative support -- or the lack thereof. It's all blamed on the students. At least that is the implication. Meanwhile, I got to say three things.
Yes, I've had fights in my classroom. What didn't get aired is that on many occasions I have dealt with these altercations without the administration. I have quashed hostilities among the students and kept young men from being kicked out -- and most of those young men stayed in school and succeeded. I still hear from some of them.
My wife was right. I was used. My words became part of the false narrative that inner-city kids are out of control and we need the police in the schools to root out the problem.
Probably not a coincidence that all the offending students in the videos they showed were African American. One wonders if the real agenda wasn't some refutation to the assertion that "Black Lives Matter."
By the time O'Reilly furrowed his brow and offered up his assessment, he seemed perfectly reasonable calling for the police to storm our classrooms.
I wonder what kind of student O'Reilly was. Did he never misbehave in school? I'm sure if he ever did it was harmless. No weapons. No violence.
And that is still what most bad behavior consists of -- teenagers trying to stave off the tedium or express themselves amid the anonymity and alienation or just express their opposition to all the adult aholes around them. Or -- and this gets little mention -- distract everyone from their own embarrassment at having been mis-educated.
We've got to help kids! That's what we are there for. If that's not your objective -- if you aren't willing to go to great lengths to help kids -- then I don't believe you ought to be working in a school.
Bill O'Reilly has every right to say that some kids are just bad apples, out of control, and should be carted off by constables. But educators have got be committed to proving him wrong.
Needless to say I was upset seeing that segment. Embarrassed -- especially when former students saw it and asked me about it.
I got a chance to set the record straight a little when Fox & Friends asked me on their show a few days later to talk about the same issue. It was to be five minutes live -- no editing -- though, as you saw, they seemed to be trying to subvert my message with sensationalist video and incongruous subtitles.
Now I feel that same kind of doom seeing a so-called news network defame my students and their peers throughout the country and call for the further criminalization of our classrooms.
Trump Won Because The Republican Party Is Filled With Clueless Idiots
By: Steve - May 16, 2016 - 9:00am
I hate to say that, but it's true. Because only an uninformed idiot would ever vote for Trump. Nothing he says is true, and he can not be trusted to do what he says he will. And this is not a partisan thing, as O'Reilly is trying to make it out to be, because almost as many conservatives are slamming Trump as liberals are.
Why did almost everybody fail to predict Donald Trump's victory in the Republican primaries? Nate Silver blames the news media, disorganized Republican elites, and the surprising appeal of cultural grievance.
Nate Cohn lists a number of factors, from the unusually large candidate field to the friendly calendar. Jim Rutenberg thinks journalism strayed too far from good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting.
Justin Wolfers zeroes in on Condorcet's paradox. Here's the factor I think everybody missed: The Republican Party is filled with idiots. Far more of them than anybody expected.
The 2006 movie Idiocracy depicts a future in which Americans have grown progressively dumber, and eventually elect as president of the United States a professional wrestler, who caters demagogically to their nationalistic impulses and ignorance of science.
Only because the film took place in an imaginary world was it possible to straightforwardly equate a political choice with a lack of intelligence. In the real world, the bounds of taste and deference to democratic outcomes make it ridiculous to do so. But the dynamic imagined in Idiocracy has obviously transpired, down to the election of a figure from pro wrestling.
While it's impolite and politically counterproductive, if we want to accurately identify the analytic error that caused so many to dismiss Trump, we must return to the idiocy question. The particular idiocy involves both the party's elites and its voters.
The failures of the elites have been the source of analysis for months now. Republican insiders and donors failed to grasp the severity of the threat Trump posed to their party, many of them rallied behind obviously doomed legacy candidate Jeb Bush, or they used ineffectual messages when they did attack Trump.
Or, most of all, they simply deluded themselves about the dangers he posed rather than face up to them. I never believed party insiders could fully dictate the outcome of the nomination, but I did expect them to be able to block a wildly unacceptable candidate, and they proved surprisingly inept even in the face of extreme peril to their collective self-interest.
Then there are the voters, whose behavior provided the largest surprise. It was almost impossible for me to believe that Republican voters would nominate an obvious clown. Everything about Trump is a joke. His orange makeup and ridiculous hair, his reality-television persona, his insult comedy and overt bragging -- they are bright signs that he is not "presidential."
Trump did not even seem to be an especially effective demagogue. He is not eloquent, not even in a homespun way. He stumbles on his phrases, repeats himself over and over, and his speeches consist of bragging and recitation of polling results so dull and digressive his audience often heads for the exits well before the conclusion.
Reality Check: It's Actually Hard To Keep Up With All The Trump Lies
By: Steve - May 15, 2016 - 10:00am
Donald Trump tells so many lies it is hard to keep up with all of them. Here are the two latest, his tax returns and his self-funded campaign.
Trump said over and over he will release his tax returns when the IRS audit is over, even though the IRS said someone who is under an audit can release their tax returns any time they want, then he said he will not release them, and now he is saying he will release them.
Trump tells a different story on the same issue every other day, so how can anyone trust anything he says, and how could anyone possibly vote for this lying, flip-flopping fool?
The other lie is massive, he has said a million times that you should vote for him because he is self-funding his campaign, which means he has not been bought by the billionaires or the lobbyists. This was the main point he made in why you should vote for him.
Now he says he will take money from the billionaires and the lobbyists, and that he hopes to raise a billion dollars to use against Hillary Clinton. So much for that self-funding, it was all lies. And btw, he was never self-funding, he loaned himself money, and he was taking donations from people, he will get most of that money back, so he was never self-funding.
It was all lies. Noting but lies, all of it. As soon as he raises a billion dollars he will pay himself back, with interest, out of the campaign money he gets. Donald Trump is a liar, and he can not be trusted, if you vote for him you are out of your mind and you need to get a check up from the neck up.
And if I were a Republican I would not trust him at all, because he will most likely not do anything he says he will. There will not be a wall, he is not going to deport 11 million illegals, he will not pass his ridiculous tax plan, and there will not be a ban on Muslims entering the country. He is lying to you to get elected, open your eyes folks.
O'Reilly Does Biased Segment About Curt Schilling Being Fired From ESPN
By: Steve - May 15, 2016 - 9:00am
For some strange reason O'Reilly did this segment, even though the story is almost a month old, and nobody cares except far-right loons who support Schilling. He posted an offensive and hate filled image about transgender people, and he deserved to be fired for it. O'Reilly implied that all he did was speak out against transgender people, which is a lie, he not only spoke out against it, he posted an offensive and racist image about it.
O'Reilly also made it a free speech issue, when it has nothing to do with free speech. To begin with, ESPN is a private corporation that can fire anyone they want, and they are not a news service with a duty to inform the American people with the news they need to make an informed vote, who are protected by the 1st amendment, they are a fricking sports network.
O'Reilly has this on his website:
ESPN and Free Speech
Guest: Dennis Miller
Former ESPN commentator Curt Schilling was recently fired for posting online about his opposition to new laws that permit transgender individuals from entering bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.
In response, Schilling said he was fired in part because ESPN gives liberal pundits far more latitude to express their views on the sports network.
"ESPN devalued the Schilling because while they knew he was a great righty, they had no idea he was a great righty," Miller joked.
And now the facts: Curt Schilling demonstrated a disgusting view of transgender people in a Facebook post in early April. Given ESPN's long largely positive history with the LGBT community, he had to be fired over it.
Schilling Has Only Himself To Blame For Being Fired From ESPN.
Curt Schilling, who turned baseball analyst, is now unemployed. That's because he has been fired by ESPN after re-posting an offensive image meme to his Facebook (he even deleted it later) that framed those that support transgender rights through the use of public bathrooms in what can only be described as grotesque.
Schilling even claimed that someone else had posted the meme, but didn't shy away in the comments tied to the meme.
They released a statement saying, "ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated."
And this was not his 1st offense, he also posted a meme to say that he disapproves of President Obama, or aspects of policy that the Democrats espouse, but he has instead used memes with the likes of Hitler.
Schilling posted an image of Obama as Hitler. And ESPN did not fire him for that, they only fired him after the 2nd offense of posting the hateful anti-transgender meme, that is about as offensive as you can get.
O'Reilly acted like Schilling was fired for simply posting online about his opposition to new laws that permit transgender individuals from entering bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Which is a lie, because Schilling did not just post that he was against it, he posted an offensive image and commented on it.
And btw, not once did O'Reilly show the image Schilling posted, or go into details about why Schilling was fired. Then on top of that he made the ridiculous claim that it was a free speech issue, which is just laughable. It has nothing to do with free speech, and Schilling deserved to be fired.
What's stunning is that O'Reilly would do such a dishonest and biased segment on it, and do it on a story that is almost a month old. It's old news, and nobody cares that Schilling got fired, except old right-wing fools like O'Reilly and Dennis Miller.
This story has no business even being reported on a so-called hard news show, and yet O'Reilly wasted an entire segment on it anyway. A private corporation can hire or fire anyone they want, and it has nothing to do with free speech rights.
In fact, it was also reported that ESPN had a clause in his contract that said they could fire him if he did harm to the network, and he did, twice, so they had every right to fire him and it had nothing to do with free speech. They should have fired him over the Obama/Hitler thing, so they even gave him a second chance, and none of that was mentioned by O'Reilly or Miller.
Trump Hires Economic Advisers That Are Proven Liars
By: Steve - May 14, 2016 - 11:00am
Donald Trump is tapping conservative economic pundits Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow to assist in remaking the presumptive Republican nominee's tax plan, which has been slammed as a budget-busting giveaway to high-income earners and corporations. And the media should be aware that both Moore and Kudlow have long histories of playing fast and loose with the facts while making outlandish and incorrect claims about the economy.
In other words, they are both proven liars who constantly lie to the American people.
Trump's team contacted at least two prominent conservative economists -- Larry Kudlow, the CNBC television host, and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Wall Street Journal writer -- to spearhead an effort to update the Trump tax plan.
Trump's initial plan has come under criticism from both the right and left for vastly expanding the deficit, with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimating it would add $10 trillion to the federal deficit in the next decade. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has moved quickly to tattoo the plan's steep price tag onto Trump, with her team holding a call on Monday calling it a reckless expansion of debt.
The conservative Jonah Goldberg berated both right-wing economic figureheads on March 9th for endorsing Trump, despite the presumptive Republican nominee's lack of apparent conservative policy bona fides.
Goldberg pointed out that both Kudlow and Moore had attacked Trump's policy proposals as recently as last August, but "as Trump rose in the polls, Kudlow and Moore joined the ranks of Trump's biggest boosters."
Kudlow and Moore are professional right-wing spin doctors who have been on TV for years lying and spinning about the Republican economic and tax plans, that they claim are fair to everyone, even though it has been proven over and over that they mostly favor the wealthy and the corporations, and they are known to constantly lie about Republican plans to get the people to support them.
If their lips are moving, they are usually lying, and these are the two people Trump hired to spin and lie about his Tax plan, instead of changing it to be fair to everyone, he hires professional spin doctors to dishonestly get people to like it.
Larry Kudlow Lectured Single Parents About Poverty Even Though He Admits To Having "Virtually No Knowledge In This Field."
Kudlow Used His CNBC Platform To Attack Taxes, Regulations In Anti-Business Connecticut.
Kudlow Previously Endorsed The Trump Tax Plan He's Now Re-Writing.
Jared Bernstein: Stephen Moore's Support Of Right-To-Work Laws Is Based On Fact-Free Claims.
NY mag: Moore "Can't Find A Single True Fact" Supporting The Campaign Against Obamacare.
Moore Claimed For Years That Obamacare Would Hurt Full-Time Jobs Without Any Proof.
Paul Krugman: Moore's "Incompetence Is Actually Desirable" In Conservative Circles.
Moore Falsely Claimed That Higher Minimum Wages Would Kill Jobs.
Moore Used Bogus Cost Calculation To Stoke Fear Of Unaccompanied Minors.
Moore Was Caught Distorting Job Creation Figures In Push For Tax Cuts.
Moore Inexplicably Called Expanding Paid Sick Leave "Very Dangerous For Cities."
Moore Called The IRS "A Welfare Program" For Paying Out Tax Refunds.
Moore Claimed That Fracking Is To The Economy Like "A Cure For Cancer" Would Be To Health Care.
Moore Supported Spending Cuts That Inhibited Economic Growth.
Moore Promoted Right-Wing Myth That Congress Is Exempt From Obamacare.
Moore Dismissed Critical Lack Of Infrastructure Funding In United States.
Kudlow Distorted Health Insurance Mandate To Claim Violators Would "Face A $25,000 Fine Or Imprisonment."
Hypocrisy Of Trump Refusal To Release His Tax Returns
By: Steve - May 14, 2016 - 10:00am
In an interview with the Associated Press, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump revealed that he will not release any of his tax returns before election day.
Previously, Trump blamed an ongoing audit for his failure to release returns, an excuse that was questioned by tax experts. As recently as Sunday, Trump pledged to release the returns "as fast as the auditors finish."
Last October, Trump said he would release his tax returns once Hillary Clinton released her emails. Now, Trump adds that he's not planning to release them because "there's nothing to learn from them" and voters aren't interested in the information.
The announcement is a sharp break from historical precedent. Although the number of years for which they've released tax returns vary, every party nominee since 1976 has released some. Fifteen years of Hillary Clinton's tax returns are available online.
It's also a sharp break from Trump's own advice to Mitt Romney. In January 2012, Trump told Greta Van Sustren that Romney "was hurt really very badly" by his initial refusal to release his tax returns. He advised Romney to "release them now."
Romney released his 2010 return and a summary of his 2011 return later that month. After Romney released his full 2011 tax return in September, Trump praised Romney for releasing his returns and said they were "very honorably done."
Although Trump now claims no one is interested in reviewing tax returns, he said he personally reviewed Romney's, calling them "absolutely beautiful and perfect."
He then advised Romney to offer to release more years of tax returns in exchange for Obama's college transcripts and passport records.
What's driving Trump's reluctance to release his returns? One possibility is that the underlying rationale for Trump's candidacy is that he's a highly successful businessman and he will make great deals for America. As proof, Trump mostly relies on a single page report listing his assets that he claims proves he's worth over $10 billion.
That document, however, is easily manipulated because it relies on Trump assigning values to nebulous assets -- including his own brand at over $3 billion. (A subsequent financial disclosure Trump filed with the FEC only lists broad ranges of values for assets.)
Tax returns, however, are not as easily manipulated. They could show that Trump is much less wealthy than he claims. One imagines that if Trump's returns validated his business success he'd be eager to release them.
Or he could have something else to hide. We may never know.
Republican Slams O'Reilly For His Bias For Donald Trump
By: Steve - May 14, 2016 - 9:00am
It was not much of a slam though, but O'Reilly mentioned it on his Tuesday night show, crying about him saying he worships at the alter of Trump.
Here is what the Republican Matt Mackowiak at the Hill wrote, and btw, it was one small mention of O'Reilly in a 2000 word or so article, and yet O'Reilly still called the guy out for it, even though he is right, O'Reilly is a Trump butt kisser, yeah he asks him a tough question once in a while, just to make it look good, but overall he is biased for Trump and defends almost everything he says.
From the article:
The conservative and mainstream media got in bed with Trump. Fox hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, radio host Laura Ingraham, even Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge all worshipped at the altar of Trump, either out of personal friendship and loyalty or desire to have access to him for ratings. They failed to hold him accountable for his statements, actions, contradictions and lack of policy substance. They built him up.
Now all of that is true, but O'Reilly hated it and wrote this:
O'REILLY: "But it's not only crazy liberals who are distorting the presidential race. Writing in The Hill newspaper a guy named Matt Mackowiak, who formerly worked for President Bush the younger, says that I, your humble correspondent, worship at the altar of Trump."
Who knew? All of us who watch your show O'Reilly, we all knew. Because it is true, you kiss Trumps butt and defend every crazy and untrue thing he says. This is a fact, you can not and will not admit it, because you are dishonest.
Lying Trump Now Says He Will Not Release Tax returns
By: Steve - May 13, 2016 - 11:00am
Trump has said over and over that he would release his tax returs as soon as the IRS audit of him is over. And as with everything else he says, it was all a lie. Now he says he will not release his tax returns.
And btw, if he does not release them he will be the first candidate since 1976 not to release his tax returns. Tuesday Donald Trump told the Associated Press he will not release his tax returns until after the November election.
In the interview, Trump said "there's nothing to learn" from his tax returns and dismissed the idea that voters had a right to see them.
Every major party nominee since 1976 has done so.
On social media, some pointed out that the tax returns could contain valuable information about Trump's background.
Previously, Trump cited an Internal Revenue Service audit for not releasing his returns. Which we do not even know is true, we have no proof he was being audited, he said he was, but it's private information so we do not know for sure.
Notice that Bill O'Reilly says nothing about it, he has not asked Trump about the so-called audit, or his tax returns, or called for Trump to release his tax returns, but when Gore ran against Bush O'Reilly called for him to release his taxes, and said if he does not he must be hiding something and can not be the President. When it's his friend Trump he says nothing.
Analysts said that Trump likely pushed the envelope to turn ordinary income into capital gains, and deferred the payment of tax through like-kind exchanges. The tax returns could also verify how much income he receives from licensing his name.
O'Reilly Promotes Far-Right Hate Group During Liberal College Segment
By: Steve - May 13, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is more proof Bill O'Reilly is a far-right loon that hates the fact that liberals speak at college events. He did an entire segment on it with another Fox News loon, Martha MacCallum. And no liberal guest for balance.
O'Reilly said this:
"According to the group Campus Reform, liberal college commencement speakers outnumber conservatives four-to-one."
Martha MacCallum said this:
"There are kids on campuses who feel under-represented in these situations and if it were four-to-one the other way around, conservative speakers to liberal speakers, you can bet there would be people walking out of those commencement speeches in protest."
Which is what they have a right to do, just like conservatives can walk out of a speech by a liberal if they want to, nobody is making them stay and listen to it. And the majority of the students normally want that speaker to talk to them, it is only a small minority who object to it.
Something O'Reilly and MacCallum never mentioned. And here is something else they never mentioned, the group "Campus Reform" is a racist far-right hate group.
On their website they say people who are transgender have a mental disorder, and they do a regular news report called "The Dangerous Faggot Tour" that neither O'Reilly or MacCallum reported about.
The group also has a grant program, given out by the "Leadership Institute" but the grants only go to conservative students. Here is what it says on their website, and btw, O'Reilly never disclosed any of this information.
"Are you a conservative student activist looking to make a difference on your campus? If so then the Leadership Institute is here to help you. Click here to see all the resources that the Leadership Institute's Campus Leadership Program has available for student activists."
And one last thing, they claim to be a non-partisan 501 C-3 group, which is just laughable. A two minute viewing of their website clearly shows they are a far-right hate group that is biased to liberals and for conservatives.
O'Reilly cited a report from them about liberal college commencement speakers, as if it was accurate, when they are a biased hate group and nothing they report is objective, they are biased against liberals.
This is a failure of disclosure from O'Reilly, and a biased one sided report on the issue. Which is what O'Reilly does, because he is a biased Republican.
O'Reilly only has a problem with liberals who speak at a college, but when conservatives speak he not only has no problem with it, he helps them protest it by doing a biased segment on it while promoting racist far-right hate groups, without disclosing they are a biased hate group.
Veteran Reporters Tell media To Stop Letting Trump Tell Lies
By: Steve - May 13, 2016 - 9:00am
Veteran campaign reporters are calling on media outlets to sharply increase their fact-checking of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying "the stakes are too high" to let Trump get away with peddling conspiracy theories and constant lies.
In the week since Trump's win in the Indiana presidential primary essentially clinched the nomination for him, the candidate has faced criticism from media critics and fact-checkers for his continued embrace of outlandish conspiracy theories.
Brian Stelter called on journalists to confront Trump head-on over his misinformation. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler hit a similar note in a May 7 article, writing that outlets have no excuse to let Trump get away with lies.
Kessler and several veteran presidential campaign reporters highlighted the sheer tonnage of misinformation from Trump, with several arguing that outlets need to be more aggressive when challenging the Republican.
"The Trump lies are so many and they come out at such a rapid fire, Gatling-gun fashion, it is hard for the reporters to keep up. I can just imagine what it will be like in October, said Walter Shapiro, who covered nine presidential campaigns dating back to 1980 for The Washington Post, Newsweek, Salon and others.
"The most important thing is that you don't put the fact checks in some separate envelope done by the fact-check expert. You have to put as many fact checks as you can in the story of the speech, in the story of the assertion and if necessary don't resort to euphemisms, like misspoke. "He did not misspeak, he did not obfuscate, he did not miss the meaning -- he lied."
Trump's lies and conspiracies have piled up over the course of the campaign, running the gamut from his repeated (and often unchallenged) boast that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning to more bizarre claims like his recent embrace of a National Enquirer conspiracy linking Sen. Ted Cruz's father to JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
"These are totally different problems than we have ever faced before," Shapiro said about covering Trump. "I give lots of news organization in the months ahead a lot of latitude because we have never dealt with someone for whom truth is as dispensable as Kleenex in politics."
He said part of the problem is when news outlets carry Trump speeches and rallies live, which by nature prevents immediate fact-checking.
David Yepsen, a former top political reporter for the Des Moines Register for 34 years, said news outlets need to "double-down on fact-checking" as the campaign continues.
"News organizations can take each one of these statements apart," Yepsen said via email. "They can't be blown off or dismissed. The tone has to be calm, factual, but dispassionate and methodical. Reporters need to keep the focus on Trump and his statements."
He later added, "It is also going to be critically important to get this debate out on social media. It's more important than a lot of reporters want to admit because more and more people are getting information about the campaign in this way."
"He is off the charts," said Kessler, who writes The Fact Checker column for The Washington Post.
Of the 34 fact-checks done on Trump in the column, nearly 70 percent have resulted in four Pinocchios, which is the site's worst rating, Kessler said. "Your average politician gets 10 percent to 20 percent of their ratings as four Pinocchios."
At PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, 62 percent of Trump comments that were reviewed received either False or "Pants on Fire," its worst rating.
Angie Holan, PolitiFact editor, says no other 2016 presidential candidate even comes close.
"The results are the results, he's wrong pretty regularly," she said. "He gets small details wrong, too. He said the trade deficit with China is $500 billion. It's not, it's $300 billion. That's quite a bit to be wrong. You add up wrong on big things and wrong on little things and that’s how he gets such a bad record."
Kessler agreed the answer is for reporters to increase their scrutiny as they would any unreliable source.
"He says this stuff and keeps saying it," Kessler said. "There is little excuse for not saying something to him when, for instance, he says he was against the war in Iraq or that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement -- things that have been fact-checked and found to be bogus."
And Trump's falsehoods are nothing new, according to people who covered him in the 1980s when he was a rising real estate mogul and New York gossip page regular.
Walter Mears, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Associated Press campaign reporter, said the challenge is for journalists to scrutinize him more than most candidates because of his poor factual record.
"It requires more homework covering a guy like this, and the trouble with Trump is you never know what he is going to make up next," Mears said. "It is not argumentative to say that Trump is lying, it is not argumentative if you state the actual fact."
Romney Calls Decision By Trump Not To Release Taxes Disqualifying
By: Steve - May 12, 2016 - 11:30am
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney slammed Donald Trump Wednesday for declining to release his tax returns, saying in a Facebook post the only explanation was that the documents contained a "bombshell of unusual size" about the presumptive GOP nominee.
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters," Romney wrote about the real estate mogul.
"There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them," he continued. "Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size."
On Tuesday, the billionaire told the Associated Press he doesn't expect to release his tax returns before November, citing an ongoing audit of his finances.
Even though the IRS has clarified quite explicitly, that it doesn't matter if you're being audited, everybody is free to do whatever they want to do with their own financial information, including their tax returns.
And we know from past precedent that even a sitting president who is currently being audited can release his or her taxes to the public if he or she wants to. President Nixon was being audited by the IRS while he was the sitting president, and he released his current tax returns during that audit.
Ever since then, all the candidates have released their taxes. Trump would be the first one not to release them.
O'Reilly Does Crazy & Biased Trump Tax Return Segment
By: Steve - May 12, 2016 - 11:00am
To begin with, this was a one sided and biased segment with Lou Dobbs (who is a Trump supporter) and no other guest to give a balanced view of the issue. It was O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs, talking about Trump saying he will now not release his tax returns. No mention of Trump saying over and over he will release them, no quotes of Trump saying it, and no video of Trump saying it.
O'Reilly sort of pretended to call for Trump to release them, but he only did it as a counter to Dobbs saying he should not release them. O'Reilly did not say he thinks Trump should release them, he asked Dobbs if he thought the American people deserved to see the Trump tax returns.
O'Reilly even said the Trump honesty was questioned by partisans, so he should release them to show he is honest. Which is just laughable, because it is not only partisans who have questioned the Trump honesty, it is everyone, Democrats and Republicans, who have questioned his honesty, because he has been caught lying more than anyone.
O'Reilly then asked Dobbs if he could name one thing Trump has done or said that he did not like, and Dobbs refused to answer. Proving that Dobbs is totally in the tank for Trump. O'Reilly even pressed Dobbs on it, and Dobbs said Trump should not have to release them and he should not have to say he thinks Trump has ever done anything wrong.
O'Reilly joked with Dobbs for being overly sympathetic to Trump in his analysis. And he said this:
O'REILLY: "According to Dobbs, Donald Trump is Jesus. And Jesus never put out his tax returns, ever."
Dobbs is a Trump lover who refused to say anything bad about him, and O'Reilly knew it, and yet he had him on alone with no opposing guest and did a biased segment on it. Where is the balance O'Reilly?
O'Reilly Makes Insane Comment About President Obama
By: Steve - May 12, 2016 - 10:00am
Here is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing nut. On the Monday night Factor show O'Reilly actually said that the Obama rhetoric has created a division in the country that is why Donald Trump won the Republican primary.
Which is totally insane, and a flat out lie. It's crazy talk, it's so crazy that even the far-right Charles Krauthammer disagreed with O'Reilly and told him he is wrong.
Obama has not created a division in the country, to begin with, the division has been there a long time, between the far-right and the far-left. It got worse after Obama was elected because of all the racists in the Republican party who hated Obama simply because he is black.
The division problem is mostly from the Republicans who from day one refused to work with Obama, and said they will oppose everything he does. I guess O'Reilly just forgot all that, not!
The division is worse because the racists on the right do not want to work with a black President, and that is a fact, a fact O'Reilly and the right will not admit because it makes them look bad, but sadly it is 100% true, and O'Reilly knows it.
He blames it on Obama, which is laughable. And it shows what a dishonest right-wing hack O'Reilly is, because he will not admit the truth.
The Republican party created Donald Trump, and they have nobody to blame but their own people. They refused to do what they said they would in their campaigns and now the voters are revolting against them, and that is a fact.
Trump is a protest vote candidate, the Republican voters are sending a message to the party that they are fed up with the liars they have in office now. And that has nothing to do with Obama, it is all about the Republicans who they voted into office not doing what they said they would during their elections when they got the majority.
It has nothing to do with President Obama, it is all about a revolt by Republican voters against their own elected officials. And for O'Reilly to blame it on Obama is ridiculous, they are to blame, not Obama. And O'Reilly knows it, he is just a far-right loon so he is trying to blame it on Obama.
Reality Check On Donald Trump Beating Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - May 12, 2016 - 9:00am
The first thing I want to point out is that Mitt Romney won white women by 14 points--56%-42%, against Obama. Gallup says 70% of women have a negative opinion of Trump.
And that was a white man against a black man, now it's a white woman against a white man, that the majority of women hate. So Trump has no chance to win the majority of women. Romney did, and he still lost by a mile.
Romney got 27% of the latino vote. Trump is at 13% approval right now with latinos.
Jorge Ramos: "87% Of Hispanics Have A Negative Opinion" Of Trump, And He Can't Win A General Election "Without Latinos." In an April 27 tweet, Univision's Jorge Ramos put recent polling data in context by noting Trump "can't win the White House" without the Latino vote.
One latino political expert says Trump will be under 10% with latinos by November, after Hillary spends 5 months and almost a billion dollars telling them how bad Trump is.
So look at the numbers, Romney lost to Obama 332 to 206 in the electoral college vote. It was not even close, and that is with Romney getting 56% of the women vote and 27% of the latino vote.
Trump will be lucky to get 40% of the women's vote, and 10% of the latino vote. That means Hillary will crush him with at least 60% of the women's vote and 90% of the latino vote. With those numbers Trump can not win, and when you look at the hard numbers you see that Trump has no chance, and the people who say he does are in denial.
And that does not even count blacks and asians, who almost all support Hillary. Not to mention this, in every state latinos are registering to vote in record numbers, they are doing that to vote for Hillary and against Trump. Which means we will have record turnout from latinos in November, and that is bad news for Trump and the Republican party.
Trump has actually hurt his own campaign and hurt the other Republicans running for re-election. Because he has made latinos so mad they are setting records to vote against him and other Republicans running for Congress and the Senate.
Which means the Republicans could not only lose the Senate, they might lose the house too. Can you imagine what it will be like with Hillary in the White House, and a Democratic majority in the Senate and the house, O'Reilly and the Republicans will lose their minds.
And they will have nobody to blame but their own stupid voters who elected Trump, they are screwing their own party and helping to put a Democratic majority in charge of the government, to that I say thank you Republicans, us liberals will love it. Not to mention this, you are destroying your own party while doing it, haha.
The so-called Trump supporters are just like Karl Rove and Fox News, who even right up to election day were saying Romney would beat Obama, when it was not even close. Trump is going to get crushed by Hillary, and the numbers prove it.
Haraldsson Slams O'Reilly For Defending Trump Taco Bowl Tweet
By: Steve - May 11, 2016 - 10:00am
Hrafnkell Haraldsson took O'Reilly to school for his insane defense of the ridiculous taco bowl tweet from Donald Trump. Here is what he wrote.
Bill O'Reilly thinks eating a taco bowl and saying he loves Hispanics compensates for Trump's call for a wall, mass deportations, and for calling them "thugs," "rapists," and "killers."
Donald Trump's Cinco de Mayo message, "Happy Cinco de Mayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!" has justly earned him some criticism. And not because taco bowls are not actually served in the Trump Tower Grill.
Janet Murguia, president and CEO of Latino civil rights group La Raza, tweeted that it is "a Trump trifecta: clueless, offensive, and self-promoting."
The judgment of social media is that she is right. Trump claimed his tweet was loved, but then Trump also claims he loves women and Hispanics.
In two more tweets, she added that "eating a taco or wearing a sombrero doesn't cut it with our community in 2016" and "we know what @realdonaldtrump has said and what he has proposed. #wall #massdeportation #TrumpNotoDACA," DACA being Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Trump's defenders have pretended a guileless response of "What's so offensive about eating a taco bowl and saying you like Hispanics"? Murguia got called a "puta" and told to "Take your ILLEGAL Latinos and go back to the nearest Latino country."
Bill O'Reilly is one of those pretending to be horrified by the storm of criticism in response to Trump's tweet, saying last Friday on The O'Reilly Factor.
"Yesterday was Cinco de Mayo. Donald Trump tweeted out a picture of himself eating tacos. Above the picture he said that he loves Hispanics. Almost immediately, the president of the militant organization La Raza tweeted out, "Eating a taco or wearing a sombrero doesn't cut it with our community in 2016. Trump is clueless, offensive and self promoting."
"So eating a taco on Cinco De Mayo is now offensive? That's like saying eating corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick's Day, and saying you love the Irish is offensive. That's how insane American culture has become."
O'Reilly was being disingenuous. Not only has the point been made that Cinco de Mayo is not a "Hispanic" holiday but a Mexican holiday, and not only has Murguia made the point that no "self-respecting Latino" would even consider a taco bowl part of their culture, but O'Reilly ignored Murguia's third tweet, the one that explained the reasons for her offense:
"We know what @realdonaldtrump has said and what he has proposed. #wall #massdeportation #TrumpNotoDACA."
Of course, if O'Reilly would have been honest about Murguia's objections, he'd have had no argument, which has been a problem haunting all of Republican politics since 2000, when Bush Jr. introduced "truthiness" into our discourse.
Hillary Clinton, whom O'Reilly was quick to point out had some Hispanic detractors too, was quick to make the point in a tweet O'Reilly refused to make in his "analysis."
Former Mexican president Vincente Fox made the point that "They don't know about Mexican food in Trump Tower. You're gonna get indigestion eating that. Today he loves us, he says. Yesterday he said he hated us. What is he going to say tomorrow?"
It was Full Frontal's Samantha Bee who had perhaps the best response, however: What Trump said has nothing to do with saying you love the Irish. Trump hasn't called on building a wall around Ireland, or deporting Irish-Americans, and he hasn't called them "rapists" and "thugs."
Obviously this whole brouhaha is about much more than Trump eating a taco. Trump doesn't love Hispanics, not for tacos or taco bowls or for any other reason, as he has thoroughly and completely demonstrated with his proposed "Great Wall of Trump," by calls for a Nazi-like round up of 11 million men, women, and children, and by calling them "thugs, rapists, and killers."
Sorry, but eating a taco bowl and saying you love Hispanics doesn't compensate for that. Gallup showed last month that 77 percent of Hispanics have an unfavorable opinion of Trump (82 percent according to a CBS News Poll).
Eating a taco bowl and saying he loves them, isn't going to cut it. But of course O'Reilly thinks it is just fine, and if you slam Trump for it then you are insane, when it is Trump and O'Reilly who are insane about it.
O'Reilly is also right that America has become crazy, but the author of that craziness isn't Murguia and other Trump opponents, it's Trump, O'Reilly, and his supporters.
If thinking that eating a taco bowl and saying you love Hispanics makes up for all the terrible things Trump has said about them in the past, you are insane.
Paul Ryan Refuses To Endorse Donald Trump
By: Steve - May 11, 2016 - 9:00am
Yes this is for real, Donald Trump is so bad his own party convention chairman will not endorse him. The chairman of the RNC convention and speaker of the house Paul Ryan says he can not endorse their candidate for President Donald Trump.
Which is unheard of, and it just shows how bad of a candidate Trump is, his own party hates him, including the convention chairman, along with about 80% of the rest of America and the world.
The House speaker said the presumptive Republican nominee first needs to unify the party and embrace "conservative principles."
Donald Trump may be the presumptive Republican nominee for president, but he does not yet have the support of the party's highest-ranking elected official.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said that he was not ready to endorse Trump, and called on the businessman to unify the GOP and embrace "conservative principles" in order to earn his support. "To be perfectly candid, I'm not ready to do that right now," Ryan said when he was asked if he would support Trump. It was a line he repeated in various forms during the 10-minute interview.
Ryan's unwillingness to endorse Trump is a fairly stunning turn in the presidential race, and it comes after the speaker insisted for months that because he will serve as the chairman of the Republican National Convention, he was duty-bound to support whoever the party nominated for president.
He did so even as he criticized Trump's proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States and for his refusal to condemn the eruptions of violence at his rallies.
Ryan also says Trump is lying when he said they had a meeting where he agreed to support Trump if he wins the nomination, Ryan said they made no such agreement in the meeting. So as usual, Trump is lying again.
Sykes: You Embrace Trump You Embrace Every Slur Every Insult Every Outrage
By: Steve - May 10, 2016 - 11:00am
The conservative radio host Charlie Sykes said this about Donald Trump: "He's A Narcissist And A Bully, A Man With No Fixed Principles Who Has The Vocabulary Of An Emotionally Insecure 9-Year-Old"
Here is a partial transcript from his interview with Megyn Kelly:
MEGYN KELLY (HOST): My next guest got national attention when he took on Donald Trump in a fiery radio interview just ahead of the Wisconsin primary. Joining me now, Charlie Sykes. Charlie, good to see you. And sure enough, Trump went on to lose the state of Wisconsin but win the GOP primary. Before I ask you about Paul Ryan, why? Because you know the argument against that is that's a vote for Hillary Clinton.
CHARLIE SYKES: Yeah, well Donald Trump is a serial liar, a con man who mocks the disabled and women. He's a narcissist and a bully, a man with no fixed principles who has the vocabulary of an emotionally insecure 9-year-old. So no, I don't want to give him control of the IRS, the FBI, and the nuclear codes. That's just me.
KELLY: Tell us how you really feel. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of wiggle room there, Charlie.
SYKES: I do see the raft swimming towards the sinking ship. But at some point -- if you understand, and this is not just ideological, it's not just the fact that he's abandoned one position after another or that he has the penchant for internet hoaxes or conspiracy theories. I mean a week ago tonight, remember, he was peddling the notion that Ted Cruz's dad had something do with the JFK assassination.
So there are people who say that just because of party loyalty we're supposed to forget all of that. I just don't buy that. Because I've cautioned my fellow conservatives, you embrace Donald Trump, you embrace it all. You embrace every slur, every insult, every outrage, every falsehood. You're going to spend the next six months defending, rationalizing, evading all that.
And afterwards, you come back to women, to minorities, to young people and say, that wasn't us. That's not what we're about. The reality is, if you support him to be president of the United States, that is who you are, and you own it.
O'Reilly Ignores Republican Alabama Judge Suspension Story
By: Steve - May 10, 2016 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly loves to report on and criticize so-called liberal judges who (in his biased opinion) make bad rulings, or do something that should get them suspended or removed from the bench. He does entire segments slamming the judge, sometimes giving out their photo, e-mail and phone number, and calling for them to be impeached. This leads to thousands of calls, e-mails, and even death threats for the judges. But when a Republican Alabama judge is suspended, O'Reilly is silent, nothing, not a word.
Roy Moore, Alabama Judge, Suspended Over Gay Marriage Stance
An Alabama judicial oversight body on Friday filed a formal complaint against Roy S. Moore, the chief justice of the state's Supreme Court, charging that he had "flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority" in ordering the state's probate judges to refuse applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples.
This guy is putting his crazy far-right religious and political beliefs ahead of the laws and his duty to do his unbiased job as a judge. And if anyone should not be a judge, it is Roy Moore, but O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because he is a Republican.
As a result of the charges, Chief Justice Moore, 69, has been immediately suspended from the bench and is facing a potential hearing before the state's Court of the Judiciary, a panel of judges, lawyers and other appointees. Among possible outcomes at such a hearing would be his removal from office.
"We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail," Chief Justice Moore said in a statement, saying that the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint, had no authority over the charges at issue.
Referring to a transgender activist in Alabama, Chief Justice Moore said the commission had "chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda."
And this is not the first time this crazy Republican judge has been suspended. In 2003, during Moore's first term as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments (which he had commissioned) from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge.
On November 13, 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.
Hannity Endorses Trump & Calls For Paul Ryan To Be Replaced
By: Steve - May 10, 2016 - 9:00am
In a series of tweets on May 5th, Republican Sean Hannity endorsed Donald Trump and attacked House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), after Ryan told CNN's Jake Tapper he is "just not ready" to endorse presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Responding to Ryan's refusal to endorse Trump, Hannity tweeted "You have to be kidding me" and called Ryan's statement "pathetic."
You have to be kidding me on @realDonaldTrump. Establishment out to sabotage GOP nominee, yet they betrayed the base #Pathetic
Hannity continued to attack Ryan, writing "The Hell with what the voters think. Circular firing squad now led by @SpeakerRyan," and additionally characterized National Review Online's criticism of Trump as "Elitist BS."
Exactly. The Hell with what the voters think. Circular firing squad now led by @SpeakerRyan
Hannity's criticism of House Speaker Paul Ryan highlights his reputation of attacking critics of Donald Trump while also being called out for his softball interviews of the Republican presidential nominee. Hannity has previously attacked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) as a "pawn of the establishment" trying to take down Trump, and rebuked commentators who critiqued his contentious interview with Ted Cruz.
Now let's remember this folks, Hannity is on a so-called News Network that claims to be fair and balanced, and yet, he endorsed Trump and admits he does softball interviews with Republicans. If someone at MSNBC or CNN did the same thing with Democrats, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for them to be fired, but when someone on his own network does it he is silent.
Trump Campaign Manager Might Not Qualify For Intelligence Briefings
By: Steve - May 9, 2016 - 11:00am
It turns out that the guy running Trump's campaign may be so bad he can not get the intelligence briefings, and he may not pass the screening test to be told top secret information. That means only Trump could get them and he can not tell anyone on his staff what is in them.
With Donald Trump on the brink of receiving classified security briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. foreign policy figures of both parties are raising concerns about a close Trump aide's ties to allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump's top adviser, Paul Manafort, has spent much of his recent career working for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, and doing complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to Putin. And while a Democratic senator has already charged Trump is not responsible enough to receive secret information, Manafort's deep relationships with top pro-Russian figures raise special concerns.
Gary Schmitt, a former Reagan Administration official now at the American Enterprise Institute, said he believed Manafort's ties merit extra scrutiny.
"If Trump is to be given access to sensitive intelligence, which can't help but implicitly involve even more sensitive information about 'sources and methods,' then it's imperative that any campaign staff who have had commercial ties with foreign governments and politicians not be given access as well until they have gone through a full, thorough background check -- not the typical perfunctory review," he said.
"Given his dubious foreign connections, it's fair to assume that many in the intelligence and national security community would be extremely wary of him handling or receiving material at even the lowest level of classification," said Adam Blickstein, a former aide to former Obama defense secretary Robert Gates.
A former Republican national security official put it more bluntly: "He's an intelligence classification vetting nightmare scenario."
American spies in foreign countries are also worried about Trump and his people knowing who they are, and they are scared their cover will be blown, that could cost them their lives.
Republican Says God Can Provide A Silver Lining To Rape
By: Steve - May 9, 2016 - 10:00am
These people are nuts, and by that I mean Republicans. They claim to love America because it is a free country, then they want to tell a woman she can not have an abortion, and if she is raped and gets pregnant she must have the child. That is not freedom, it's communism.
And it is none of their business, abortion and rape is between the woman, her family, and her doctor, they have no business telling anyone what they can or can not do with their body.
You would think, in 2016, that the topic of rape and the horrors that accompany it would be fairly well understood. If there's a group of people who deserve, without question, to be able to do whatever they want without input or judgement from anyone -- it's someone who's been the victim of a violent sexual assault.
However, for some bizarre reason, some Republicans seem to believe that rape victims who were impregnated by their assailant somehow should either lose control of their bodies, thus being forced by the government to give birth to the child or that they should look on the bright side with the gift that God bestowed upon them.
Yes, because nothing says God loves you quite like being brutally and violently sexually assaulted, resulting in that woman becoming pregnant by the very man who raped her.
Such as Republican Missouri State Rep. Tila Hubrecht, who recently said that if a woman becomes pregnant following a sexual assault that she should look at that as a "silver lining" to the tragedy.
"It is not up to us to say 'no just because there was a rape, they cannot exist,'" Hubrecht said. "Sometimes bad things happen, horrible things, but sometimes God can give us a silver lining through the birth of a child."
These comments were made concerning legislation that could give Missouri voters the right to determine whether or not fetuses should be given constitutional rights.
First, the fact that someone would consider fetuses as people is absurd. When a baby is born, we don't consider it 9 months old, do we? Not only that, but what about the Constitutional rights of the actual living and breathing woman?
If this somehow became law, there's absolutely no chance it is held up as Constitutional.
It would basically ban abortion -- which is an issue we settled over 40 years ago with Roe v. Wade.
How ridiculous it is for anyone to try to tell a rape victim that it's some sort of blessing from God if they happen to become pregnant from the assault and that they should view it as a silver lining from the horrific event.
This sort of attitude is not uncommon among the Republican party. In the past we've seen Todd Akin try to claim that a woman can't become pregnant if it's a legitimate rape and I wrote a story about a year ago about another Republican who said it can be beautiful if a child is the result of a sexual assault.
To say nothing about the majority of the Republican party who don't believe rape victims should be allowed to have abortions.
The bottom line is this, there is nothing beautiful about any kind of sexual assault, nothing. If a woman who is the victim of such a violent encounter does happen to become pregnant because of it, the only person who should have any say so over whether or not she has that baby is that woman.
It is inexcusable and disgusting that this sort of attitude still exists, and somewhat flourishes, within one of our country's two largest political parties.
Lying Trump Is Still Lying About His Ridiculous Tax Plan
By: Steve - May 9, 2016 - 9:00am
The Trump campaign released a tax reform plan in September that laid out exactly how he would lower tax rates on businesses and individuals. While he claimed that it would give the middle class "major tax relief" while making hedge fund managers pay, analyses found that in fact most of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent and leave very little for everyone else.
Just like every other Republican tax cut plan, it all goes to the wealthy and the corporations, and to hell with the middle class and the poor, who actually deserve it and need it. Then he does like every other Republican, lie to you about it and hope you are stupid enough to believe his lies.
When pressed on those details on CNBC on Thursday morning, rather than defend his plan, Trump started to walk it back.
"Given that you've championed the middle class so much in your speeches, one of the critiques of your tax plan is that 40 percent...of the tax cuts end up going to the top 1 percent under the current plan," the host asked him. "How do you square that?"
"I will say this, and I'm not necessarily a huge fan of that," Trump responded. "I'm so much more into the middle class who have just been absolutely forgotten in our country."
He went on to explain that his tax plan shouldn't be taken as a literal description of his priorities, but a general starting point. "When you put out a tax plan, you are going to start negotiating," he said. "You're not going to say, 'Okay, this is our tax plan, lots of love folks.' There's going to be a negotiation back and forth."
During this negotiation, he said, the tax relief he would offer for the middle class would theoretically increase. "I can see that going up, to be honest with you," he said. "I could see that going up and I think that probably will happen."
Trump's plan is already extremely costly: it would reduce government revenues by $9.5 trillion over a decade. If all the details remained the same but tax relief for the middle class increased, it would clock in even higher. Trump didn't offer up any further details on what a final tax reform package would look like.
Changing his stance on his own plan is at least more consistent with the facts.
When pressed on how it would treat the wealthy in a debate in April, Trump simply said that under his plan "the very rich are going to end up probably paying more," despite the fact that all of the analys of the plan said otherwise.
He's also starting with some false conceptions about the United States tax climate. Earlier in the interview with CNBC on Thursday he claimed, "We're the highest taxed nation in the world," later adding that the middle class is "being taxed at a much higher rate" than two decades ago.
Neither is true.
The U.S. is one of the lowest-taxed developed countries in the world. Middle-class families also pay lower rates than they did in the mid-90s.
Taxes weren't the only issue Trump changed his mind on after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. In an interview with CNN, Trump said he is "looking at increasing the minimum wage because it has to be something that you can live on."
Yet just a few months ago he said wages in the U.S. are "too high" and the minimum wage has to be left "the way it is" so that the country can compete internationally.
He also pays his employees at his hotels less than other hotels do, he hires illegals, he is opposed to unions, and he want wages as low as possible so he can make more profit off the backs of the poor workers.
In other words, Trump is a liar and you can not believe a word he says. He will say anything to get elected, and if he ever did he would just do everything he can to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
And btw, to the Republicans who voted for Trump in the primary, here it goes. Trump is already walking back his tax plan, so as I said he would he is changing his plans, and if I had voted for him in a primary I would be mad that he lied to me. Trump lies about everything, so don't be shocked if he changes every plan he has, and you are the suckers who voted for him.
O'Reilly Ignores Report That Hillary Clinton Broke No Laws
By: Steve - May 8, 2016 - 11:00am
O'Reilly keeps saying this: "If Hillary is not charged with anything over the email server she will be running against Trump."
Ignoring the fact that the whole thing is nothing but a partisan witch hunt with no evidence she broke any laws, so when a report comes out saying just that, of course O'Reilly ignored it.
U.S. officials say they have not yet found evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton willfully broke the law with use of her private email or that her server was hacked, according to two new reports, undercutting the conservative witch-hunt for a bombshell in the Democratic presidential front-runner's email setup.
Prosecutors and FBI officials "have so far found no evidence that Hillary Clinton intended to break classification rules," according to a May 5th Washington Post report. The article noted that "prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not."
From the report:
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney's Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.
CNN underscored the findings in the Washington Post article, reporting that "The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law."
The reports join the growing chorus of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures, who have repeatedly scandalized Clinton's use of a private email server by arguing that she broke the law using her server for State Department emails.
Fox News chief right-wing propaganda correspondent Catherine Herridge, who has a history of hyping evidence-free claims, most recently reported on May 4th that "the infamous Romanian hacker known as 'Guccifer' easily -- and repeatedly -- breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal email server," a claim parroted by many other right-wing media figures.
But U.S. officials "dismissed claims by Guccifer that he was able to breach Clinton's personal email server," according to the Post, noting, "investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion."
NBC News also reported that the hacker "could provide no documentation to back up his claims," and Politico reported that an "internal FBI review of Clinton's email records did not indicate traces of hacking."
Fox also alleged that the Obama administration is slow-rolling the Select Committee on Benghazi Committee's investigation into Clinton's email use, scandalizing the fact that a "special unit to review Benghazi documents" was convened later than expected.
The Department of Defense recently criticized the committee, slamming it for "straining the department's resources" chasing "documents and interviews" often based on "speculative or hypothetical" queries, according to Politico.
A letter sent by Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger derided the Republican-led committee's "multiple and changing requests," some of which have been "unfair, unproductive, and unnecessary," and implored the committee to "remain focused on obtaining facts rather than encouraging speculation."
Since Clinton's use of private email was revealed, conservative media figures have made multiple baseless allegations, only to be burned by facts.
The new revelations that investigators have not yet found evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton only add to the growing list of debunked myths spuriously pushed by Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media.
Trump Says He Will Use The Media Against Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - May 8, 2016 - 10:00am
Donald Trump: Raising A Billion Dollars Won't Be Necessary, "I Have A Big Voice, I Go On Shows Like Yours, I Explain The Truth. And People Seem To Go Along With It"
What Trump fails to mention is that all the garbage he used was against Republicans in the Republican primary race. That stuff will not work in the general election with non-Republican voters, it will just make them mad and most likely lead to more people voting for Hillary, especially women and Latinos, who are registering to vote in record numbers.
Here is a partial transcript:
LESTER HOLT (HOST): You've been proud of the fact that you've self-funded your campaign to this point. You talk about donations can have bad influence. There's a super PAC being formed now to support you. Where do you stand now, as you move into the expensive general election campaign? Will you accept donations?
TRUMP: Well, I don't know, first of all, about super PACS. I know that people maybe like me and formed a super PAC, but I have nothing to do with it. As you know, I'm not allowed to have anything to do with it. So we'll see what happens. As far as the campaign, I'm making decisions right now, but probably will work with the Republican National Committee, raise a lot of money and go out and beat Hillary.
We're going to try to raise over $1 billion which is what's going to be necessary. The Democrats maybe will get as high as $2 billion. But we want to raise up to $1 billion, maybe even over that. I'm not even sure that's necessary, because I have a big voice, I go on shows like yours, I explain the truth. And people seem to go along with it.
You look at the victories that I've had over 16 people that are senators and governors and high-level people, and one by one, they're gone. And we'll see what happens now. But I think Hillary actually will be easier to beat than many of the senators, governors, et cetera, that we just were victorious with.
After Cruz Defeat Beck Says The GOP Is Full of Unelectable Racists
By: Steve - May 8, 2016 - 9:00am
Glenn Beck stumped hard for Ted Cruz along the campaign trail this year. He declared Cruz anointed by God, fasted on important primary days, and went right along with Cruz's hardcore stance against gender-inclusive bathrooms.
When Cruz announced the suspension of his presidential campaign last night, many wondered if Beck would be okay.
Monday on his radio program, the host let it be known that the GOP now belongs to Donald Trump and if Trump is the face of the party, that makes the party a bunch of racists.
He disavowed everything he claimed Trump has caused the Republican party to stand for now, insisting that he has nothing to do with them anymore.
He even went as far as to say Hillary Clinton will win the election.
"You will never elect another GOP person to high office ever again," he claimed.
His reasoning was that Trump has made the party appear so racist and Clinton will continue capitalizing on that, mobilizing a new generation of Democratic voters.
O'Reilly Calls Criticism Of Trump's Taco Bowl Tweet Insane
By: Steve - May 7, 2016 - 11:30am
Which is proof how far in the tank O'Reilly is for his friend Donald Trump, because the tweet was ridiculous and he knows Trump did it as a cheap publicity stunt. It was the worst thing you could do to try and get latinos to vote for you, and O'Reilly knows it. But he defended his friend Trump over it anyway.
In fact, I would bet it made latinos even more mad at Trump for thinking they are stupid enough to fall for his taco bowl nonsense, they know he hates them and it will probably cost him even more votes with latinos.
Earth to the idiot Bill O'Reilly, it's not about eating a taco bowl you moron. It's about calling for a wall to keep all the latinos out of the country, while at the same time saying you want to deport them all, while posting a ridiculous photo of you eating a taco bowl, while saying you love latinos.
Trump does not love them, and he is a racist idiot who will be lucky to get 10% of the latino vote, who will never be the President, no matter how many times O'Reilly says he could do it. The numbers are the numbers, and if you lose with women, blacks, latinos, and asians, you can not be the President, it's impossible. And then on top of that, 30% of the Republicans even say they will never vote for Trump, ever.
O'Reilly: "So Eating A Taco On Cinco De Mayo Is Now Offensive?"
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Yesterday was Cinco de Mayo. Donald Trump tweeted out a picture of himself eating tacos. Above the picture he said that he loves Hispanics. Almost immediately, the president of the militant organization La Raza tweeted out, "Eating a taco or wearing a sombrero doesn't cut it with our community in 2016. Trump is clueless, offensive and self promoting."
So eating a taco on Cinco De Mayo is now offensive? That's like saying eating corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick's Day, and saying you love the Irish is offensive. That's how insane American culture has become.
Reiner Calls Out Media For Useless Trump Loving Fake Journalism
By: Steve - May 7, 2016 - 11:00am
Rob Reiner triggered a Morning Joe meltdown by going on the MSNBC program and calling out Scarborough, Brzezinski, and the rest of the media for treating Trump like a celebrity while chasing corporate profits.
After saying that a few of the reporters have done a great job covering Trump, Rob Reiner went off on the media.
He said, "We know that since the late sixties when 60 Minutes became a hit. All the sudden networks realized that there was a profit center in news. We all know that, and slowly, slowly, slowly, this is a talk show and we are all having conversation. It's not hard news. It doesn't claim to be hard news. The show part of it is getting bigger and bigger, where the show part of it, show business and news have blurred."
Chris Matthews held Trump accountable on his position on abortion. He didn't let him up. He kept going at it, and it was the most revealing thing of this entire campaign season.
Reiner also called out the media for treating Trump like a celebrity, "The words that are being flung out from his mouth are insane. If Trump was not a celebrity, the words that come out of his mouth. You'd see a guy in a park. A lunatic in a park on a soapbox, and you'd walk right by him. But the fact that he's a celebrity. All the sudden, we're all interested."
Reiner made his point, "What we have to care about is what does this man say."
Joe Scarborough said, "We do."
Reiner continued, "He's not pinned down. I want to hear how he's going to deport 12 million people."
Scarborough said that they have tried to nail Trump down, but he talks in circles. Reiner tried to show Joe and Mika what they should be doing, but the Morning Joe hosts had a meltdown and got defensive about how difficult it is to interview Trump.
The best part of the disaster for the Morning Joe crew came when Willie Geist asked Reiner to explain the millions of people who like what they hear from Trump. Reiner answered, "There are a lot of people in this country who are racists."
Scarborough said, "Oh, my God, did you just say that?"
Yes he did Joe, and it's true, you Republicans just refuse to admit it or talk about it.
Then asked if he thought all Trump voters were racists. Reiner continued, "No. I said there are a lot of people who are. There's racism in this country that has been submerged for a long long time."
Scarborough tried to use the standard Trump defense of appealing to working class whites, but Reiner shot that down too, "Let me say this to that. There are those who are following Bernie Sanders that feel the same way. Do you see any racist people at the Bernie rallies? Do you see any skinheads?"
The most devastating critique of the media's love affair with Trump didn't come from the political pundit class. It came from the guy who directed The Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally.
Nobody believes for one second that Scarborough and Brzezinski have been tough on Trump. Their friendship with the Republican frontrunner is well documented. It is true that Trump talks in circles and tries to filibuster his way through interviews, but whether or not a journalist can pin Trump down is a matter of desire.
Chris Wallace and Chris Matthews have both done interviews where they pinned Trump down. CNN's Chris Cuomo recently pinned Trump down by repeating his question until Trump answered.
It is possible to pin Trump down. It is easy if the interviewer is willing to be persistent, and hold Trump to a higher standard than that of being a celebrity. Morning Joe is chasing the ratings. They have no interest in seriously holding Trump accountable for his statements.
Everyone in the media who enables Trump by going soft on him is helping him promote his bigotry and hate speech.
Reiner was right, and Morning Joe was left without an excuse for their Trump support disguised as journalism.
Trump Tells O'Reilly He Will Take The Low Road Against Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - May 7, 2016 - 10:00am
And I hope he does, because it will just make things worse for him and make more women hate him.
Here is a partial transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Now, tone, tone. If history is any barometer, the Clinton campaign will go after you through surrogates. MoveOn, these sleazy left-wing websites are going to tear you up. Are you going to respond to that if Hillary Clinton takes the high road and doesn't do any of that?
DONALD TRUMP: Well, I'm going to be able to figure it out. We had 17 people just now and I figured that out and I will be able to figure it out with Hillary. It depends on where she is coming from. If she wants to go the low road, I'm fine with that. And if she wants to go the high road, which probably I would prefer, I would be fine with that.
O'REILLY: But wait. You're fine with the low road? Most people don't want to go on the low road?
TRUMP: No, I can handle the low road if I have to do it. I mean, we've had some low roads over the last few months.
TRUMP: I'm fine with it if we have to go that direction. Maybe you haven't noticed.
O'REILLY: You know what? I hope you don't have to go to it. I would like to see you and Mrs. Clinton in a spirited campaign about issues without the low road. I know the media likes it. I know they like all that stuff but I don't. I would like to see you, you know, you guys just fight it out over issues.
O'Reilly Lectures Vicente Fox On The Border Wall
By: Steve - May 7, 2016 - 9:00am
Here is a partial transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So, here's my take on this and you tell me where I'm wrong. Patrolled vigilantly on both sides, on both sides, I think a border wall is actually humane. Because it would cut down on people and drug smuggling, two things that injure human beings as you know. So where am I going wrong?
VICENTE FOX: Well, really Fox and numbers, Bill, are totally different to what is being said. And I think it's very important that I have invited you to come to Mexico. But more so I think it's very important to invite Donald Trump to come to Mexico and to learn about the real Mexico, that is I would think totally different.
For instance, I was listening when he said Mexico deserves punishment because of the deficit the United States has on the trade balance with Mexico which, yes, he is right. It's $50 billion. But does he know that the deficit with China is $400 billion?
O'REILLY: He knows it. He's threatened them too. He knows it but look, let's get back to the wall, let's get back to the wall. My hypothesis is that the wall would save lives, alright?
Would be good for Mexico and the United States. Because it would take a lot of the power away from the smugglers, many of whom are cartel members and it would save, you know how people are abused.
Poor people trying to get el norte. They are abused by these coyotes. You know that. This wall would not stop it entirely but cut the drug smuggling and people smuggling down.
The Trump Taco Bowl Tweet Was Ridiculous
By: Steve - May 6, 2016 - 11:50am
To begin with, the average American calls it a taco salad, not a taco bowl. I am 56 years old and I live in central Illinois, and I have never in my life heard one person call it a taco bowl, it's a fricking taco salad.
Which shows how out of touch Trump is with the American people, to me it's just as bad as Ted Cruz calling a basketball rim a ring, it's pretty much the same thing.
And btw, if you are latino and you vote for Trump now because he had a taco salad and said he loves latinos, you are clueless and stupid. It's propaganda, and if Trump had his way he would deport all the latinos and block the rest of them from entering the country.
Trump is a racist idiot, and if anyone votes for this clown you are stupid and a fool. And the Republicans deserve to lose the Senate and the House over this, Trump is not qualified to be the President. They are even scared to give him an intelligence briefing, they are worried that he is so crazy and he runs his mouth so much he will leak top secret information.
And this guy is trying to be the President? I am more qualified to be the President than he is. The good part is he will never beat Hillary Clinton, she is winning with women, latinos, blacks, and asians, Trump only has white men, and you can not win a Presidential election with only the white man vote.
So thank God, Donald Trump will never be the President. And anyone who tells you he can be is lying to you, these are the same people who said Romney would beat Obama, and then Obama crushed him 330 to 205. Right now Hillary is beating Trump about 320 to 190, and Trump will be lucky to get over 200. You can not be the President when 70 to 90 percent of the people hate you, and only 60 percent of white men like you.
Rolling Stones Tell Trump To Stop Playing Their Songs
By: Steve - May 6, 2016 - 11:30am
The Rolling Stones have asked Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to stop playing their songs at his campaign events.
In a statement Wednesday, the rock band said they have not given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and "have requested that they cease all use immediately."
A Trump campaign spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has featured Rolling Stones songs at his rallies for months as part of a diverse soundtrack that includes Elton John, opera and classic rock songs. The Rolling Stones 1969 classic "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was a popular song choice for his events.
O'Reilly Ignored Ed Henry Affair Scandal Suspension
By: Steve - May 6, 2016 - 11:00am
Ed Henry is the reporter who covers Hillary Clinton, and he is a regular on the O'Reilly Factor. He was recently given time off for an affair with a mistress, but you will never hear about it from O'Reilly, because he has ignored the entire story.
Fox News has pulled Ed Henry off the air after his mistress came forward and revealed a ten-month affair.
After In Touch Weekly revealed that Henry had a ten-month affair with a Las Vegas hostess, Fox News issued a short statement saying that Henry would be taking some time off, "We recently became aware of Ed's personal issues and he's taking some time off to work things out."
Henry's personal problem is that he cheated on his wife. The situation is more complicated for Fox because of late; Henry had also been covering Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Ed Henry can't make the morality argument against Hillary Clinton that Fox News is going to be pushing if he has a problem keeping his private parts zipped up and honoring his marriage vows.
Fox News hypocritically talks about family values while employing on air talent that can't live by the same standard that they are preaching to their viewers. The morality argument was already toast for Republicans with serial adulterer Donald Trump leading the ticket, but Ed Henry's scandal is a sign that Fox News and the Republican Party should just give it up.
Ironically, the man who has demonstrated what real family values look like in action is President Obama. Henry has spent years asking ridiculous and biased questions of President Obama, and maybe now karma is coming back to get him for it.
Chris Wallace Admits The Media Put Trump On For Ratings
By: Steve - May 6, 2016 - 10:00am
Now tell me something I don't know. Wallace is just admitting what we already knew, that the corrupt corporate media gave Trump billions in free air time for ratings. They have proven they do not really care about equal time for all the candidates, or informing the American people, the American media cares about one thing, RATINGS!
So they can sell the ads for more money, higher ratings equal more money for them. The founding fathers who gave the media free press and 1st amendment protections are rolling over in their graves looking at the media we have now. It's simply a corporate tool to make money and keep the people uninformed about important issues to them. And Chris Wallace finally admitted it, for once he actually told the truth.
Partial transcript from the Fox show The Five:
GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): A broader question about the campaign itself. A chicken or the egg question. Did the Trump support drive the media, or did the media drive the Trump support by diminishing real estate for other candidates?
CHRIS WALLACE: I get asked this question a lot. I have to say -- I think to a certain degree, if it becomes a vicious or virtuous cycle, depending on how you view the Trump campaign, but I think we were followers, leaders in this.
In other words I think that the reason we put him on so much -- and I think we did, all of us, whether it was cable, whether it was broadcast, all of us put him on too much. I think to a large degree, it was because every time we did, it spiked the ratings.
We were in a sense following what the ratings were, which was the response to the public. Having said that the fact that we put him on so much, it did crowd out, take a lot of the oxygen away from the other candidates. But I think at least the initial impulse was if you put him on, you get ratings and we're in the news business.
O'Reilly Defends The Trump Smear Of Ted Cruz Father
By: Steve - May 6, 2016 - 9:00am
Bill O'Reilly: "He Gets Emotional, But Then He Steps Back And It's A Different Guy"
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Alright. Now, on the record, the Cruz campaign denies any association. It came out of a National Enquirer report. But, this stuff doesn't do the Republican Party any good at all. I cede your point there. But I know Trump. He is not -- he gets emotional, but then he steps back and it's a different guy. Go ahead.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Do you believe he thinks that Cruz's dad was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald?
O'REILLY: No. But I believe that he puts that out there just to create mayhem and creating mayhem has won the election for him. Has it not?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, what you are saying is the end justifies the means.
O'REILLY: That's what he says. He believes he has to win --
KRAUTHAMMER: -- You're saying I don't care if he is creating mayhem, he won. I don't think that's the right answer.
O'REILLY: I'm not saying. I'm just telling you how he -- you say okay, I don't want him with the nuclear code. And I'm saying to you, a lot of this is theater because the odds of him winning the nomination when he began in June were a million to one and he won it by creating mayhem and it was a brilliant strategy. It worked for him.
Joe Scarborough Caught Lying About Hillary Clinton Emails
By: Steve - May 5, 2016 - 10:00am
Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set up her email system "so everybody, her subordinates, everybody else, had to send classified information through an unsecured server."
But there is one small problem with that, Hillary Clinton never sent or received any information marked classified on her private email, and "has said she only viewed classified information in hard copy in her office.
None of the emails she sent or received were marked classified, none of them, and Scarborough knows that, but he is still lying about it anyway. And btw, Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the very same thing, but neither Scarborough or any Republicans are calling for them to be put in jail over it. Proving it is all a political witch-hunt.
If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Additionally, emails have been released that "actually show Clinton's team talking about how they can't email each other classified information."
SCARBOROUGH: Come on, FBI, wake up. I mean, the fact of the matter is that she set it up so everybody, her subordinates, everybody else, had to send classified information through an unsecured server. That would be like if I were the director of the CIA and I set my office up in a burger shack down the street and said, hey, you've got to bring the documents here, just leave them all in this file. It is the same thing. It is the same thing.
BARNICLE: And why would you do that? What would be the reason for you to do that?
WALLACE: He likes burgers.
SCARBOROUGH: I love burgers, I don't like them. I would do it because I'm paranoid and I don't want anybody inside the agency to have the access to anything because I'm going to run for president some day, which is what she did.
She put her own political, her own political needs in front of classified information. So, again, is it, is it an indictable offense? A lot of people in the intel community think it is. But I don't think she's going to be indicted. I think they're going to let her skate.
They might indict somebody below that. But just get it done. Like, seriously. Let the Democrats know, for sure, that they have Hillary Clinton as their nominee or not. Make your decision already.
Will Says Republicans Must Keep Trump Out Of The White House
By: Steve - May 5, 2016 - 9:00am
Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor George Will urged Republicans to keep Donald Trump out of the White House, even if he is selected as the Republican nominee for president, writing that political prudence "demands the prevention of a Trump presidency."
Many right-wing media pundits and commentators have expressed their fear of a Trump nomination, with some joining the so-called "Never Trump" movement.
Those conservatives have vowed that they would actively oppose Trump even if he became the nominee, with some like Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol vowing to recruit a third-party candidate to run against Trump, and others stating they would vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Trump if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
In his April 29 Washington Post column headlined "If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House," Will committed himself to this movement, arguing that the GOP needs to be rebuilt from the damage Trump has done to the party, and urging voters to support Cruz so that the Republican convention can "choose a plausible nominee" who might win a general election, instead of "passively affirming the will of a mere plurality of voters."
If Trump becomes the Republican nominee for president, Will wrote, conservatives have the task of "helping him lose 50 states" so the GOP can preserve its identity.
Here are some quotes from the article:
Donald Trump's damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party's history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party's reconstruction.
Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere, some of them six months earlier. A convention's sovereign duty is to choose a plausible nominee who has a reasonable chance to win, not to passively affirm the will of a mere plurality of voters recorded episodically in a protracted process.
Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney's insufficient support among women, minorities and young people. In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House.
The minority of people who pay close attention to politics includes those who define an ideal political outcome and pursue it, and those who focus on the worst possible outcome and strive to avoid it. The former experience the excitements of utopianism, the latter settle for prudence's mild pleasure of avoiding disappointed dreams.
Both sensibilities have their uses, but this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency.
Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states -- condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation's civic life.
If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power.
Insane O'Reilly Slams Media For Using Trump To Get Ratings
By: Steve - May 4, 2016 - 10:00am
Which is laughable, because Fox does it more than anyone. Fox News Has Given Trump More Than Double The Amount Of Airtime Compared To Other GOP Presidential Candidates. And O'Reilly has Trump on his show damn near every night, so he is as guilty as any of them, if not more guilty.
O'Reilly even does it himself, and says it is all about the ratings. When he is attacked for bias his answer is "I am #1 in the ratings so that means I am doing a good job" even though nobody else thinks that. Ratings do not equal truth or quality, it just means O'Reilly has a lot of right-wing stooges that are brainwashed by him and watch him, it does not mean he is a truth teller or a good journalist.
Here is a partial transcript:
BERNIE GOLDBERG: I think that we should also be concerned about when the media is unfair not just to the candidates but to the American people. When cable news runs Donald Trump's rallies and speeches live and virtually unaltered, they come off --
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): That's a campaign commercial.
GOLDBERG: As infomercials for Donald Trump.
GOLDBERG: That he doesn't even have to pay for. Now, we all know why that happens. Leslie Moonves, who you know, who runs CBS said and this is a quote, "All this coverage of Donald Trump may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS."
GOLDBERG: Look, I get it. I'm a capitalist. I want news organizations to make lots and lots of money. I'm all for ratings. But when you are in the news business you have other obligations too. Donald Trump is no longer the host of The Apprentice. He is running for President of the United States of America. Infomercials and soft interviews by some people on television don't do the American people any good.
O'REILLY: I agree 100 percent. But that's a different issue. For the record I want to say this. We don't do that here on the Factor. On this hour eight to nine eastern time. You are not going to see any infomercials. We won't even allow candidates to call in. We're one of the few programs that don't. Chris Wallace doesn't do it on the CBS -- on the Fox News Sunday show. All the rest let them call.
We're not going to do that. Because there's a big difference when you call in when you're in your jammies and you have five people in the room telling what you to say and when you are on like you are right now. We are not going to do that.
O'REILLY: And I agree with you that there's been far too much of let's put Donald Trump on to get ratings.
Fox Lies And Spins The GDP Report And The Obama Economic Record
By: Steve - May 4, 2016 - 9:00am
On the April 29 edition of Fox News Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney joined co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy for a segment dishonestly slamming President Obama's record on the economy.
The segment was a response to Obama's recent interview with The New York Times, during which the president discussed how markedly the economy has improved since 2008 and what he hopes will be his economic legacy.
The segment seemed to unwittingly mirror the right-wing playbook for downplaying positive economic gains during Democratic administrations by relying on false conservative talking points to dismiss economic growth and tout failed tax policies.
The segment opened with Kilmeade and Varney making the false claim that Obama is "the only U.S. president who could not deliver a single year of three percent growth." Despite the fact that Kilmeade's claim that Obama is "the only" president not to clear that bar is false.
Republican president Herbert Hoover didn't just fail to hit three percent growth, he failed to hit zero percent growth. The economy contracted at a rate of -8.5 percent in 1930, -6.4 percent in 1931, a staggering -12.9 percent in 1932, and -1.3 percent in 1933.
And that is not all, we had four consecutive Republican presidents overseeing economic growth of less than 2 percent from 1871 to 1885. Over the course of the next 45 years the economy swung wildly between boom and bust cycles, including several deep depressions, before the Great Depression and FDR's subsequent creation of oversight mechanisms that work to maintain relative economic stability.
Fox Business host Stuart Varney is supposed to be a serious voice for analysis and expertise at the network, but Varney is a serial liar, who creates confusion on economic issues.
In November 2014, Varney predicted that a Republican takeover of the Senate would usher in an era of "3 to 4 percent" growth, which he now complains hasn't happened. The economy grew at a 2.4 percent pace in 2014, and continued to grow at a rate of 2.4 percent after the GOP took over complete control of Congress in 2015.
When the Commerce Department figures were first released, Varney wondered if the economy growing at a slightly slower rate than experts had predicted was proof that we are "sliding toward recession" -- his comments came just moments after an actual economist was on CNBC debunking the idea.
In the past week, Varney has attacked impoverished children for soaking up too many government benefits and watched idly as an economist easily debunked conservative demands for more tax cuts and deregulation to spur the economy.
Since the start of the year Varney has been an unceasing source of misinformation on the minimum wage, has misled on the funding structures of public-sector unions, has lamented a proposal to pay people for the hours they work, and has attacked anti-poverty programs that help struggling families and save taxpayers money.
In an April 28 blog post, Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman explained how Republicans mislead the American public about the health of the economy by ignoring positive economic trends.
The focus of Waldman's comparison was the objective reality of progress and areas for improvement specified by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the "laughable fantasy" of "an absolute (economic) nightmare" outlined by Republican front-runner Donald Trump, but it could have just as easily been any of the personalities at Fox News.
This April 29 Fox & Friends segment that mislead on GDP is one very good example.
In Waldman's piece, he hit Trump for pretending tax cuts are the solution to economic growth -- they are actually a proven failure. Varney often repeats this same tax cut talking point at Fox.
When Earhardt asked on Fox & Friends "what is the reason for these bad numbers" on the economy, Varney slammed "massive regulation, constant government borrowing" and "overspending to raise the debt" -- exactly the talking points for which Waldman hit Trump the day before.
Fake Tough Guy O'Reilly Says He Would Have Punched HuffPost Reporter
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 11:30am
Which is funny, because O'Reilly and his crew are the kings of ambush journalism, they are always sticking cameras in people faces, and even follow them home and try to get on their property and talk to them. But if one of them punched one of the O'Reilly crew he would flip out and most likely sue them.
When it happens to his guy and he gets a taste of his own medicine he does not like it and gets mad, too bad jerk, you do it to others so expect it to be done to you.
And O'Reilly is just a blowhard fake tough guy, he is not even man enough to have me on his show, so all this tough guy talk is a fraud. The guys you worry about are the ones that say nothing, the talkers are usually just that, all talk.
Bill O'Reilly: I Would Have Punched Huffington Post Reporter That Filmed Watters
O'Reilly: "I Would Have Been In Jail, That's Why I Don't Go To These Things"
Reality check: O'Reilly does not go to those things because he is a lazy coward who does not want to leave his studio in New York. That's why he has his boy Jesse Watters do his dirty work, because he is afraid he would get punched.
O'Reilly is just an old fool, a coward who is all talk.
Here is the rest of the transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): OK, so at 1:30 in the morning, you and a far left guy -- and we talked about this in the Talking Points Memo, had a little dust-up, right?
JESSE WATTERS: It was really small ball. I was just at this party trying to enjoy myself, this guy comes up to me with a cameraphone, I don't even know who this guy is.
WATTERS: He starts putting it in my face, I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious, and then, you know, things happened, and I regret that it happened, and that's all it is.
O'REILLY: But you didn't hit him, did you?
WATTERS: Never punched him.
O'REILLY: Alright, see, I would have.
WATTERS: Of course you would have.
O'REILLY: I would have been in jail. That's why I don't go to these things.
O'Reilly Admits It's About Trump & Ratings Not Journalism
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 11:00am
Bill O'Reilly finally admitted he is a ratings hack who thinks what his friend Donald Trump says is more important than reporting actual news and being a real journalist. He even got mad at a woman who told him his job is to inform the American people, not just report the crazy stuff Trump says.
Then he said he was going to school her about how journalism works, when all he did was make a fool of himself and prove he is not a journalist.
Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, was forced to defend his network's coverage of Donald Trump last night at a time when they have lost many viewers to their rival cable news network, CNN.
O'Reilly's main guest was Kelly Riddell, an editor at The Washington Times, who is critical of both the time Fox News gives to Trump, as well as the nature of questions they ask the real estate tycoon.
O'Reilly asked Riddell, "Are we driving Trump's success?"
"Absolutely," she answered. "You can't turn on the TV at night without hearing something about Donald Trump. I mean, Ted Cruz had it right: he has almost two billion dollars in free earned media."
She told O'Reilly how Jeb Bush spent $100 million in advertising, compared to the $2 billion in earned media Trump has received from media coverage.
O'Reilly cut her off and said that he "could not get Jeb Bush" to come on The O'Reilly Factor, at which Riddell stifled a laugh. She responded, "that's fine. But Fox News covers his rallies live all the time. I mean, how many other candidates rallies have you seen get covered live?"
The O'Reilly Factor host replied that his show does not do that, and that it has been difficult to get other candidates like Cruz and John Kasich to come on.
"So a lot of this whining was their own fault, because Trump was available," O'Reilly said.
"O'Reilly continued, his voice rising, he makes news. He makes news every time he opens his mouth. We're in the news business!"
Which is laughable, because Fox is not in the news business, they are in the ratings business, and they get those ratings by promoting Trump, slamming Democrats, and telling Republicans what they want to hear, that is not news and it's not even close. O'Reilly himself has admitted it's all about ratings, and when he is slammed for his reporting he says but we are #1 in the ratings so we must be doing something right.
"Yes, Riddell responded, but you're also in the editorial business, and you need to decide what is newsworthy, and I would say that Donald Trump's hands is not newsworthy, and that shouldn't be covered at all."
"That's your opinion, O'Reilly replied. "This operation decides what's newsworthy, and it's been on top for fifteen years, so I think that we know."
"Exactly, Riddell said. "It's a ratings game. You're right, Bill. You're on top."
After some inter-change with his other guest, Caitlyn Huey-Burns of Real Clear Politics, O'Reilly then challenged Riddell, saying that since she's in the news business, she should know that her company needs circulation for business.
"Yes, she replied. "But I also have a public service to the rest of the candidates in the race. This past summer, there was not a single vote cast. There were seventeen candidates in the Republican race. This summer Donald Trump dominated three-fourths of the coverage."
"That's because he was making news," O'Reilly cut in.
Dear Bill O'Reilly, that was not news, it was Trump insulting people, making crazy statements, and saying stupid things, that is not news, it's a train wreck you and the rest of the media covered non-stop to get ratings and promote Trump with billions in free advertising.
And btw, the media should give equal time to each candidate, and you can do that without having them on as a guest. O'Reilly acts like you can not give them equal time unless they are a guest on his show, which is just laughable. The media should be giving each candidate equal time, not giving them time based on what they say, or what Bill O'Reilly decides is newsworthy, that was her point, she is right and O'Reilly got mad at her for being right.
Riddell tried to reply, but O'Reilly cut her off again, yelling, "Most of the other candidates come on with prepared statements and talking points that they repeat over and over and over again! They're not calling people names," he said, citing Trump's claim that John McCain was not a war hero because he was a prisoner of war.
"I don't know if that is news," Riddell said. "I think there's a public service for running for the highest public office in the land, and we need to serve the public with tax plans, policy plans."
O'Reilly shouted over her, "My job is not to serve the public. My job is to inform the public about the news."
Bill O'Reilly then motioned for Huey-Burns to have the last word.
The on-air meltdown -- and tacit admissions from O'Reilly about Fox News methods for covering the news -- comes at a time when CNN just announced that they have been winning the key 29-54 age demographic for five of the last eight months.
And the Factor ratings have dropped a little in the last 6 months, unlike any other election year when the Factor ratings go up during presidential elections. So his Trump coverage has hurt his ratings, not helped them, but O'Reilly covers Trump all the time anyway because he is his friend and he is biased towards him, which he will also not admit.
As Inquisitr reported yesterday, this is the first time CNN has beaten Fox News in this demographic since November 2001, and it comes during the period in which some have criticized Fox News for its perceived pro-Trump coverage.
Amanda Terkel Statement About O'Reilly And Watters
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 10:00am
Jesse Watters, Fox News ambush man, appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night to discuss his recent altercation with Huffington Post Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim.
On Saturday night, following the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, Grim and Watters got into a fight at an afterparty hosted by MSNBC. It was one of those glitzy Washington events where everyone tries to put aside their differences and get along for one night.
The video (which contains some explicit language) shows the minutes leading up to the confrontation. Grim tried to get Watters to bury the hatchet with me regarding a 2009 incident in which he ambushed and harassed me while I was on vacation because I'd dared to write a critical post about Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
Grim walked up to Watters -- while filming with his phone -- and asked him to come over and apologize to me. Watters refused. I also said I wasn't interested in talking.
Grim continued to film, which Watters -- who has made a living from ambushing people and filming them unexpectedly -- couldn't handle. He grabbed Grim's phone out of his hand and tossed it away. When Grim returned, still filming, Watters again snatched the phone, pocketed it and refused for several minutes to give it back.
He also tried to delete the video. When Grim went to retrieve the phone, fisticuffs ensued.
"Most of it seemed like the beginning of a WWE match when wrestlers are arms locked," witness Adam Green later told The Huffington Post in an email. "Some shoving. Some drink glasses falling to the ground."
On Monday, O'Reilly and Watters addressed the incident on "The O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly claimed that "this Grim character had no business bothering Jesse Watters about anything, but that is what the far left does. They seek to harm people with whom they disagree."
Watters said he regretted the situation.
"I was at this party trying to enjoy myself. This guy came up to me. He starts putting it in my face," Watters said. "I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious. Things happened, and I regret it happened, and that's all it is."
What hasn't been reported is what Watters said during that conversation and how he characterized his 2009 ambush of me.
Seven years ago, I was a blogger for ThinkProgress. On March 1, 2009, I wrote a post reporting that O'Reilly was scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for a group committed to supporting rape survivors. I also noted that in the past, O'Reilly had made controversial comments about an 18-year-old woman who'd been raped and murdered, implying that it was her fault because she had been drinking and because of what she had been wearing.
In response to that post, O'Reilly sent Watters out to ambush me while I was on vacation in Virginia. On March 22, Watters accosted me on the street and asked why I was causing "pain and suffering" to rape victims and their families. He never introduced himself and didn't give any context for what he was saying -- he simply shouted questions as I tried to switch out of vacation mode and remember the short post I had written weeks earlier.
Fox News has never given an explanation for how Watters found me. I didn't tell anyone exactly where I would be that weekend, and in retrospect, I remember a car following me for much of the way. My best guess remains that Watters found my home address, followed me for two hours to Virginia and then harassed me after I walked out of my hotel.
Watters was unrepentant Saturday night at the MSNBC party. He said I "denigrated some rape victims" and "said some nasty shit."
"I ambushed her because O'Reilly told me to get her, because she said some really bad shit... She denigrated some rape victims, so we had to call her out. It's what we do," Watters said.
O'Reilly never reached out to me before sending Watters and his cameraman out on the ambush mission, belying the idea that he was a journalist simply trying to get comment. O'Reilly ran segments describing me as a "far-left blogger" who attacks rape victims, and cast himself as an ally of victimized women. Sending men to intimidate, follow and ambush a young woman is an odd way to make that point.
Watters way of confronting his subjects is to thrust cameras in their faces unexpectedly and pepper them with aggressive questions. It's surprising, then, that he wasn't more prepared to have the same thing done to him.
Instead, he asked Grim if they could find a better time to talk.
"Not tonight," he told Grim. "Not tonight."
Presumably, in the future, he'll offer his targets the same courtesy -- and won't mind if they grab his camera and keep it.
O'Reilly And Watters Lie About Fight With HuffPost Reporter
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 9:00am
O'Reilly said this:
BILL O'REILLY: "And we have a very personal example for you tonight. Jesse Watters was confronted in Washington over the weekend by a far left zealot who hectored him and provoked a physical confrontation."
"And that was the end of that. Until Saturday night in Washington. Citing that interview with Terkel, this man, Ryan Grim who works for The Huffington Post confronted Jesse Watters at a party after the Correspondents Dinner. A scuffle ensued and Watters will brief us on that a bit later on. The whole thing is insane."
"This Grim character had no business bothering Jesse Watters about anything. But that is what the far left does. They seek to harm people with whom they disagree. Talking Points has had enough. All far left kooks who cause trouble and break the law will be held to account here."
That Grim character did nothing more than the exact same thing Jesse Watters does to other people, he is an ambush reporter, he even followed one lady on her vacation and ambushed her. But when he is ambushed he gets mad and does not like it, then O'Reilly gets mad, when he tells his own guy to do the very same thing. They do it, then get mad when it is done to them.
JESSE WATTERS: It was really small ball. I was just at this party trying to enjoy myself, this guy comes up to me with a cameraphone, I don't even know who this guy is.
WATTERS: He starts putting it in my face, I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious, and then, you know, things happened, and I regret that it happened, and that's all it is.
O'REILLY: But you didn't hit him, did you?
WATTERS: Never punched him.
And now the truth:
Notice that neither Watters or O'Reilly mentioned the fact that Watters took the phone from Grim and put it in his pocket, and they denied punches were thrown, when everyone who saw it says there was. Not to mention the fact that Watters was just asking for trouble by going to an MSNBC after party. But O'Reilly ignored all that to defend his jerk producer.
The Huffington Post even published a video showing the minutes leading up to the confrontation between Grim and Watters. The White House Correspondents' Dinner is known as a lavish, incestuous mixer where the political press, pundits and celebrities lay down arms for one night of communing.
But one Saturday night after party, hosted by MSNBC, wasn't so peaceful, with Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim and Fox News correspondent Jesse Watters reportedly getting into a physical fight.
The Washington Post's Dave Weigel first tweeted a photo of the early-morning scuffle and identified Grim and Watters as the men involved.
Grim said on Twitter he approached Watters while recording video on his phone, asking him about Watters confronting his Huffington Post colleague Amanda Terkel while she was on vacation in 2009.
Terkel earlier recounted her run-in with "hit man" Watters, headlined "I Was Followed, Harassed, And Ambushed By Bill O'Reilly's Producer."
Ryan Grim Twitter:
Ambush guy snatched my phone, didn't like being filmed, he tried to keep it. That didn't happen.
According to witnesses at the Foggy Bottom party, Watters didn't take kindly to be filmed and pocketed Grim's phone. When Grim tried to get the phone back, the two flailed around, upended a table and collided with several partygoers.
Another witness told the Washington Post, "punches were definitely thrown."
Several bystanders, among them Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee spokesman and frequent cable news guest, intervened to break up the fight.
Asked for comment, a Fox News spokesperson told TPM Watters would address the issue Monday night on "The O'Reilly Factor."
Right-Wing Media Benghazi Expert Pleads Guilty To Fraud
By: Steve - May 2, 2016 - 10:00am
Wayne Simmons, who presented himself as a national security expert and was a part of the conservative media push for a congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack, has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.
And of course you never heard a word about this from the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, he has totally ignored the entire story.
In an April 29 press release the Department of Justice noted that Simmons "falsely claimed he spent 27 years working for the Central Intelligence Agency" and had pleaded guilty "to major fraud against the government, wire fraud, and a firearms offense."
The release further noted, "Simmons admitted he defrauded the government in 2008 when he obtained work as a team leader in the U.S. Army's Human Terrain Systems program, and again in 2010 when he was deployed to Afghanistan as a senior intelligence advisor on the International Security Assistance Force's Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team."
Dana J. Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said, "Simmons admitted he attempted to con his way into a position where he would have been called on to give real intelligence advice in a war zone. His fraud cost the government money, could have put American lives at risk, and was an insult to the real men and women of the intelligence community who provide tireless service to this country."
Simmons was a frequent guest on Fox News, appearing on the network dozens of times purporting to be a former CIA operative. In those appearances, Simmons regularly criticized Democrats on foreign policy and national security issues.
In one instance, he said, "If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated."
Simmons was a member of the biased far-right Accuracy in Media's (AIM) Citizens Commission on Benghazi -- part of the conservative media's ultimately successful push to get House Republicans to set up a panel to investigate the Benghazi attack.
AIM is a biased right-wing media watchdog group that claims to be Independent and fair and balanced, just like Fox News. When we all know that is a lie.
In that capacity, Simmons appeared on Fox and falsely claimed that the Obama administration had decided "to not rescue our former CIA operatives and our military" in Libya. Which is another lie that has been proven to be a lie over and over.
When Simmons was first arrested for the fraud charges, AIM scrubbed references to his role from its website. Fox News acknowledged that he had appeared on the network as a "national security and terrorism expert," but said he "was never employed by the channel and was never paid by Fox."
As if that makes it ok, he was a fraud and they should have checked him out before they used him. They did not do that, because he was willing to go on the air and lie about Democrats, so that was good enough for them.
Limbaugh Says It's An Outrage CNN Let Women Talk About Trump Sexism
By: Steve - May 2, 2016 - 9:00am
He said he can not imagine anywhere you might find three men complaining about women saying something about a man. Even though they do it almost every day on Fox News, they have all male panels talking about female issues all the time.
Limbaugh is just a liar and a sexist, he thinks men should be able to control everything women do, and that they should just keep quiet while cooking for them and waiting for them in the bedroom.
Rush Limbaugh, who thinks women who assert themselves are sluts, is unhappy that CNN is actually letting women talk about how Trump talks about them. You know, instead of having a bunch of men talk about how women feel about Trump talking about them, which makes so much more sense in the conservative universe.
Limbaugh said this:
During the break I was watching on CNN. They have three women there discussing how offended they are that Trump said that Hillary always plays the women card. Can you see three men on TV discussing how offended they are that some female candidate had said something about men? It just doesn't happen.Of course we can imagine three men discussing how offended they are by a female candidate. We see it every day on Fox News. Who is he kidding?
What's funnier is him saying Clinton plays the woman. She doesn't play a woman - she IS a woman. You would think people so obsessed with who can use which bathroom would get that distinction at least.
And Hillary Clinton playing the victim card? He can say this after years of a Republican smear campaign over one invented charge after another? Clinton doesn't play the victim card and never would, but if there ever was somebody entitled to play that card, it is Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is a woman and she is a victim, she is a woman who has a right to speak out on women's issues and call out right-wing scum who make sexist attacks on her. She is also a victim, a victim of the right-wing smear machine who try to make her look bad to stop her from being the next President.
And it is not working, in fact, it is doing the opposite, it is getting her more votes, because the people see it as unfair sexist attacks, and it just drives more people to vote for her, not less. Trump's sexist attacks are going to backfire on him, so I hope he does keep doing it. And attacking Hillary for a sex scandal Bill had 20 years ago is ridiculous, because she had nothing to do with it.
I understand Limbaugh comes from a different world, a place where Fox News regularly appoints panels of white men to talk about not only what women can and cannot do, but how women feel about things, because who better to explain things to women than men?
And I won't even get into the panels of all white Republicans who share the black experience with their fellow white viewers. Which happens all the time on Fox News.
And it's not only Fox News. MSNBC does it too: Remember when they had an all-male panel explain that Hillary Clinton needs to speak more softly? Or the GOP explaining to women that they shouldn't care about equal pay?
And then there was Ted Cruz trying to mansplain the Constitution (which is funny because Cruz has obviously never actually read the Constitution).
And surely you will never forget the time Fox News appointed a panel of men to determine whether or not women should be allowed to wear leggings. Don't ask a woman. Not on Fox News. Because if it can't be mansplained, it shouldn't be mentioned. And gods forbid it should not be creepy as hell by having women model for them while they joked about pre-treating themselves with nitroglycerin.
Republicans have convinced themselves that women should just back off and let the men handle it and tell them what they think and how they feel about everything, just like they have all through history.
Rush Limbaugh is just the loudest of a sad, pathetic bunch of would-be men confronted by women who reject being their entertainment.
Real men aren't afraid of women, which tells you just about all you need to know about Rush Limbaugh.
Trump's Wall Propaganda Is Backfiring On Him
By: Steve - May 1, 2016 - 10:00am
Donald Trump's threat to build a wall is backfiring on the Republican Party as Hispanics are registering to vote in bigger than ever numbers for the purpose of voting against Trump in November.
The Hill reported this:
Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Elected and Appointed Officials, projects 13.1 million Hispanics will vote nationwide in 2016, compared to 11.2 million in 2012 and 9.7 million in 2008.Many of these new voters are in California and Texas, but there are also registration spikes being reported in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada. There is also speculation that increased Hispanic voter registration could put Arizona into play in the fall.
Donald Trump's threat to build a wall between the US and Mexico has had the opposite effect of what Trump intended. The plan to build the wall has motivated millions of Hispanic Americans to register to vote so that they can cast their ballots against Trump this fall.
Trump's wall is wildly popular with his supporters in the Republican Party, but it is a losing position with voters in the general election. Trump is turning off the voters that his party needs if they are going to win back the White House.
In other words, the only wall that Trump is successfully constructing is a wall between him and votes from Latino's.
Rep. Peter King: Ted Cruz Gives Lucifer A Bad Name
By: Steve - May 1, 2016 - 9:00am
Republican Congressman Peter King really hates Ted Cruz, so much so that he suggested John Boehner gave the devil a bad name by comparing him to the Texas senator.
In an interview with CNN, the New York congressman told Wolf Blitzer he agreed with the former House speaker, who called Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh" on Wednesday night.
"Maybe he gives Lucifer a bad name by comparing him to Ted Cruz," King said.
"Listen, what John Boehner was most concerned about was Ted Cruz perpetrated a fraud and a hoax when he brought about the shutdown of the government on some kind of a vague promise that he was gonna be able to take Obamacare out of the budget or to end Obamacare."
King argued that Cruz knew his strategy would never work, but he did it anyway. He "shut down the government, cost the government money" and "served no purpose whatsoever other than to boost his name identification."
Ahead of New York's primary earlier this month, King, who voted for John Kasich to send a message to Donald Trump, said he hates Cruz and would take cyanide if he ever won the GOP nomination.
Trump often ridicules Cruz on the trail for his lack of support among his congressional colleagues, proudly boasting that Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions endorsed his campaign over Cruz, who often cited him in his stump speeches.
While a handful of former Republican presidential candidates have supported his candidacy in an effort to stop Trump from being the party's standard-bearer, members of Congress have been slow to voice their support for the senator, even if they've voted for him in the Republican primary.
Senators Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, for example, have voted for Cruz, but they haven't formally endorsed him, like Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah and Cory Gardner of Colorado.
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com