Trump/Nixon Says Presidents Can Not Have Conflict Of Interests
November 30, 2016 - 10:00am

Okay, you guys elected this clown and he is already starting to act like Richard Nixon, saying this. "There is no legal need for him to free himself of his international business affairs to avoid conflicts of interest, flatly saying that presidents can't have a conflict of interest."

Basically Trump is saying the President can do anything, legal or not, simply because he is the President, which is the exact same thing Richard Nixon thought.

During an on-the-record meeting with The New York Times staff, President-elect Donald Trump declared that there is no legal need for him to free himself of his international business affairs to avoid conflicts of interest, flatly saying that presidents can't have a conflict of interest.

Journalists responded to Trump's statement by calling it Nixonian, referencing former President Richard Nixon's comment to journalist David Frost "that when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

Times reporters live-tweeted the meeting between Trump and newspaper staff, where he was asked about the numerous conflicts of interest he is facing with his business ties and his plans to turn over his businesses to his children while simultaneously involving them in his White House transition.

In his replies, Trump said it's not necessary for him to put his businesses in any kind of trust and that, as president, he "can't have a conflict of interest" -- echoing an argument made by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that financial conflict-of-interest laws don't apply to the presidency.

In fact, even Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, and other legal experts across the political spectrum have warned that presidential conflicts of interest of this type "could violate a crucial constitutional protection against corruption and influence by other governments," specifically the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- "essentially an antibribery rule, which forbids public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign powers without explicit congressional approval."

Bolling Downplays Deficit Spending When It's A Republican President
November 30, 2016 - 9:00am

This shows the massive hypocrisy and double standards from the people at Fox, including O'Reilly, who does the very same thing with Trump or when a Republican does it. They both spin it, when a Democrat does it they say it's the end of the country, when a Republican does it they dismiss it and say it's good for the country.

And btw, Obama did cut taxes, Guilfoyle said she would have loved Obama if he cut taxes, as if he never did. Even though he did cut taxes.

Here is a partial transcript, even Greg Gutfeld calls out Bolling for his double standards and hypocrisy:

GREG GUTFELD: You know what's interesting is Trump is tangling up the normal patterns of opposition where there used to be left and right. When you bring up infrastructure, Democrats love to spend, so when they hear infrastructure, they get very excited.

EBONI WILLIAMS: Softens the palette.

GUTFELD: So what happens to the conservative deficit hawks? Where are those guys? So he starts to create these different oppositions that didn't really exist before.

DANA PERINO: We made a lot of fun of President Obama for shovel-ready projects --

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: That weren't there. So there's some work that needs to be done to figure out what the mayors and the governors what actually needs to be --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Hook up that pipeline, Keystone Pipeline.

ERIC BOLLING: And senior adviser Steve Bannon who's spent many many years on Wall Street, went to Harvard, very, very smart guy. He said, he makes a very good point. If you're going to borrow, if you're going to deficit spend, it's borrowing. Do it when the interest rates are low like they are right now, and there's a lot of indication interest rates may be rising soon.

GUILFOYLE: Does that make sense?

PERINO: Don't you think the fed will do that before --

BOLLING: It makes a lot of sense.

GUTFELD: But if Obama had done that we would have crucified him.

WILLIAMS: But that's the point, right Greg, is that Obama -- the policy here remains somewhat the same, but the messenger does make a difference, and that's the sad truth.

GUILFOYLE: I would have loved Obama if he cut taxes and got rid of the IRS.

GUTFELD: But his spending, remember, we were going to shut down the government over spending.

O'Reilly Defends Donald Trump's Ties To White Nationalists
November 29, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course he defended it, because he is a Republican and a friend of Trump, who defends everything he says and does.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Creating a mythological situation, that is the subject of the third Talking Points memo. The liberal press furious that Donald Trump won the election, so now they are putting out absurd storylines designed to denigrate those who voted for Mr. Trump. The top one is that somehow the white power movement is gaining momentum in the U.S.A., because of Trump.

You may remember that on November 19th about 275 hapless nuts showed up for a white nationalist conference in Washington, D.C. 50 reporters were there to greet them. Let me give you that again, 275 morons covered by 50 journalists. That meeting got more press than a Louis Farrakhan rally ever has.

Now, Talking Points is not suggesting the media cover Farrakhan. That sound bite is simply to illustrate the extreme rhetoric is not unusual in a country of more than 330 million people. It happens all the time.

According to the FBI, in 2015, there were about 1,200,000 violent crimes committed here in the U.S.A. The same year, there were less than 6,000 hate crimes reported. I mean, come on. That sound like an epidemic of hate-driven violence to you? Does it?

And then there are the folks who voted for Trump and whom the media are trying to make into some kind of fascist cadre. Bret Baier had a very fine special called The Trump Revolution where every day Americans got their say.

That doesn't sound exactly sound like a Nuremberg rally, does it? Yet, folks like those are routinely demonized by left-wing media as racist, or whatever. Truth is, there is no substantial white power movement in this country. Donald Trump won the election because of economics, but the press will never tell you the truth. Instead, they continue to brook rubbish.

Summing up, the press is trumping up, pardon the pun, a white power movement storyline that simply doesn't exist. It's vile to suggest that it does. Individual nuts are everywhere, assigning them status is grossly dishonest. I am so tired of this I can't tell you. And that's the Memo.

------------------------------

Now think about this, if one black person, or one Democrat, says anything bad about Trump O'Reilly blames all blacks and all Democrats for it. He lumps the millions of blacks and Democrats into one group because of what one person said.

But if all the white power folks come out in support of Trump, and the media reports it, O'Reilly loses his mind and says you can not blame Trump, or the Republicans, or lump them all in together, even though he does it himself when blacks or Democrats are involved.

And even after Trump and the Republicans promote the white power groups, and target them in their campaigns and advertising. The evidence is clear, but O'Reilly ignores it to defend Trump and the white power folks. Then he complains about media bias, when he is the one being biased, while ignoring the facts and slamming the media for reporting the facts.

Even Krauthammer Admits Trump Conflict Of Interest A Big Problem
November 29, 2016 - 9:00am

But of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, or his fill-in host for the week Eric Bolling. Because they are both Republicans and both Trump butt kissers. Now if a Democrat had the same conflict of interest O'Reilly and Bolling would both be all over it and demand they sell everything, but when a Republican does it, they ignore it and look the other way.

Here is a partial transcript:

DOUG MCKELWAY (HOST): This is all complicated by the fact that Trump's children are the Trump business partners as well. So, it's virtually impossible for them to not know who he's negotiating with as president. How does he extricate himself from this relationship?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I don't think it can be done. I think this is an insoluble problem. First of all, we've never had a president with holdings so widespread around the world. Second, as he himself has said in many of the depositions he has done over the years, the value of his company fluctuates according to perception, and the main element of the values of a lot of his properties has to do with his name.

Many of them are not his. They're just -- they slap his name on and the value increases and he gets a payment. So the idea -- what you would normally do is you sell everything, because you can't have a blind trust for a business that's so visible. You have to sell everything, but that of course would impact the value. It'd be a fire sale. He would never do that.

He spent his life constructing this extremely closely-held empire that all revolves around him and reflects him. It would require him to basically look back on the 30 years of his life he built this and to say, that's over forever. I'm now going to liquidate my holdings, and from now on I'm president, and president only.

Unless he does that, there is no answer to this, and every time he makes a phone call to a head of state where he has business interests, there will be questions.

MCKELWAY: And the chances of that actually happening?

KRAUTHAMMER: Close to zero.

Shep Smith Fact Checks Trump Lie About Ford Factory Moving To Mexico
November 28, 2016 - 10:00am

Even Shep Smith at Fox is calling out the Trump lie. I just wonder how much longer he will have his job. Notice that the Trump stooge O'Reilly never does any fact checking of Trump, in O'Reillyworld there is no need for it.

Here is a partial transcript:

SHEPARD SMITH (HOST): The president-elect is taking credit for stopping the Ford car company from moving one of its American factories to Mexico, but there's a problem. He did do not that.

Ford executives were never planning to shut down the plant in Louisville, never. The president-elect tweeted, nonetheless, last night, "Just got a call from my friend, Bill Ford, chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. No Mexico."

He continued, "I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great state of Kentucky for their confidence in me."

Associated Press and others report that auto giant was never going to transfer. It was actually going to transfer production of just one vehicle, the Lincoln MKC, so it could boost production of a more popular model, the Ford Escape, and company representatives said there were no plans to cut even one single U.S. job.

John Busse is now the associate editor for the Wall Street Journal, and here with us on the deck. He didn't actually do what he said he did.

JOHN BOSSE: Yeah. John Stoll and Christina Rogers of our Detroit bureau have a great sort of play by play of what actually happened, so in our website, on WSJ.com.

And you're right, the number of jobs that that plant employs before this announcement, and after this announcement are unchanged. As you point out, all they were going to do is that they had already announced to the UAW they were going to move production of that Lincoln Crossover SUV to -- to Mexico, so they could boost production of the Ford Escape, which is also made at that plant.

That's all that was going to happen. So, no jobs were going to be lost, no jobs were going to be gained, the plant was going operate as usual.

The Guy Who Never Settles Lawsuits Just Settled Another One For $25 Million
November 28, 2016 - 9:00am

Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle lawsuits alleging his for-profit business Trump University used aggressive sales tactics and unqualified instructors to scam students. Throughout the lawsuit's litigation, right-wing news outlets helped shield Trump University from criticism by enabling Trump to lie about the institution and aiding his racist attacks on the judge overseeing the case.

The New York attorney general announced November 18 that Trump has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits alleging employees at his for-profit education scheme, Trump University, used "high-pressure sales tactics and employed unqualified instructors" to scam students.

The NY Times called the settlement offer "a remarkable concession from a real estate mogul who derides legal settlements and has mocked fellow businessmen who agree to them."

The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general on Friday, just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury.

The deal, if approved, averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.

Fox Host Calls On Trump To Pick Education Secretary That Will Close It Down
November 28, 2016 - 8:00am

Which is just insane, and this guy Eric Bolling is the fill-in host for O'Reilly on the Factor. He actually said Trump should pick someone who will close the agency down.

Here is a partial transcript:

ED HENRY: Another meeting that is interesting tomorrow is Michelle Rhee. She's an Asian-American woman. She had run the schools in Washington, D.C., which have been in deplorable condition for a long time. She improved it and she took on the teacher's unions. Why is that important? Well, I think she is somebody who could actually shake up the education department, number one. And number two, what you are hearing is it's early, but it's all white men.

ERIC BOLLING (HOST): I think they should pick someone for the education secretary that will close the agency down.

HENRY: Turn the lights out.

BOLLING: Yep. "That's it. We're done."

O'Reilly Refused To Discuss Sexual Allegations Against Roger Ailes
November 18, 2016 - 10:00am

Wemple: O'Reilly's Refusal To Discuss Unsavory Matters About The Network, Ensures No Internal Reform Will Happen At The Network.

The Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's refusal to address sexual harassment scandals at Fox News proves O'Reilly to be a loyal soldier to the network's internal culture of suppressing unsavory matters, including allegations of sexual harassment that continues to plague the network.

During an interview on CBS This Morning Tuesday, O'Reilly refused to answer questions from CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell about Fox News host Megyn Kelly's allegations she was sexually harassed by former Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes because he was not interested in making Fox News "look bad."

O'Reilly instead insisted that Fox is a good place to work and said he was not going to buy into let's use the Fox News Channel as a pinata.

Wemple criticized O'Reilly, writing that his refusal to address Fox News sexual harassment issues is the very mentality enabled Ailes for decades of keeping allegedly harassed women and their colleagues from going public.

Despite Ailes having resigned, Wemple wrote, "O'Reilly is working as his party apparatchik to suppress dissent."

From the November 15 article:

After concluding the discussion of childhood civility, co-host Norah O'Donnell pressed Bill O'Reilly on whether he'd read Settle for More, the memoir by Fox News host Megyn Kelly in which she recounts experiencing sexual harassment at Fox News at the hands of Ailes, who lost his job over the summer following a plume of such allegations.

Kelly writes that he tried to grab and kiss her, then asked her when her contract was up -- an ominous question, in Kelly's tale. Another accuser, former host Gretchen Carlson, received a $20 million settlement from Fox News's parent company, and former host Andrea Tantaros's litigation (also for sexual harassment allegedly from Ailes) remains active.

Had O'Reilly been the editor of Settle for More, however, readers would have had to settle for less. "I want to be very candid here: I'm not that interested in this," said O'Reilly in his CBS This Morning interview.

Pressed on whether he was saying he wasn't interested in sexual harassment, O'Reilly made it plain, "I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished that makes my network look bad, okay, I'm not interested in making my network look bad at all. That doesn't interest me one bit. I'm not going to even bother with it. I've got a country that's in a political transition. I've got a kids book that I want millions of kids to look at. That's what I'm interested in, not making my network look bad."

A few points here:

O'Reilly, your network already looks bad. A full-on sexual harassment crisis swept through its halls this past summer. More than a dozen women who had been harassed or demeaned by Ailes came forward to tell their stories.

Nothing that Kelly puts in her book will exacerbate that set of facts.

This very mentality is what enabled Ailes for decades. The message from O'Reilly here is this: Shut the hell up, colleagues. Don't discuss in public unsavory matters that could lead to internal reform. And suppress dissent.

Over his two decades as the head of Fox News, Ailes enforced those rules, keeping allegedly harassed women and their colleagues from going public. Though Ailes is gone from Fox News, O'Reilly is working as his party apparatchik. A loyal soldier to the end.

Mayor In West Virginia Resigns After Racist Obama Post
November 18, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, as he claims there is no racism against Obama.

A West Virginia mayor resigned Tuesday following a backlash after she posted a response to a racist comment about first lady Michelle Obama on Facebook.

The Clay Town Council accepted Mayor Beverly Whaling's resignation in a meeting late Tuesday afternoon and said it would act quickly to name a replacement for the remaining three years of her term.

The resignation came after another woman whose racist post Whaling responded to was placed on leave as director of the Clay County Development Corp.

Council member Jason Hubbard issued a brief statement condemning the horrible and indecent post and said racism and intolerance isn't what this community is about. He apologized on behalf of the town to Michelle Obama and anyone who was offended.

"This community is a helpful, hopeful, empathetic and God-loving community," Hubbard said. "Please don't judge the entire community for one or two individual acts."

Clay County Development director Pamela Ramsey Taylor made the post following Republican Donald Trump's election as president, saying of incoming first lady Melania Trump: "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels."

Whaling responded: "Just made my day Pam."

Town council member Joyce Gibson said that after news of the post circled the globe, the small office's voicemail system quickly filled to capacity with irate callers.

An online campaign calling for Taylor and Whaling to resign drew tens of thousands responses.

Taylor, who told WCHS-TV on Monday night that she was put on leave, did not return a call seeking comment.

Last week in Kentucky, Republican Dan Johnson won state House of Representatives seat from Bullitt Count despite a series of posts he put on Facebook depicting President Barack Obama and his wife as monkeys.

And last month in West York, Pennsylvania, the town council accepted the resignation of Republican Mayor Charles Wasko after an uproar over racist posts on his Facebook page, including two depicting apes with captions referring to Barack Obama and his family.

O'Reilly Does Misleading Segment About Police Violence On Blacks & Whites
November 18, 2016 - 8:00am

Their Own Data Shows Lethal Police Force Against Nonviolent Black Offenders Is More Than 3 Times Higher Than Whites. But that is not what O'Reilly and his biased guest reported.

Bill O'Reilly invited the conservative Heather MacDonald from the Manhattan Institute on to argue that police do not use force against blacks at a greater rate than whites for violent felonies.

MacDonald and O'Reilly both ignored that police use lethal force against blacks at a much higher rate for nonviolent arrests.

On the October 25 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted MacDonald who claimed that "actually, if there's a bias in police shootings it works in favor of blacks. White felons are more likely to be shot by the police following the arrest for violent felony than blacks are," citing data from the Center for Police Equity (CPE) showing that police used lethal force more against whites in violent felonies:

Here is what they did, MacDonald cherry-picked data from the CPE used in her Wall Street Journal column which actually found that lethal force was used more often on white individuals than black individuals only in the context of violent crime.

But the study found that overall "the mean use of force rate for black citizens was higher than that for white citizens in all categories" and "When controlling for resident arrests for violent Part I offenses, racial disparities that disadvantaged blacks persisted in weapon use and the use of OC spray," according to the July, 2016, report.

The report's analysis revealed "a robust racial disparity benchmarked to population such that blacks receive a mean use of force score -- a combination of counts and severity -- that is roughly 3.8 times higher than whites:

MacDonald has a history of citing biased data and making inflammatory remarks about black violence. Not only has she said that there is no evidence "that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison or arrest statistics is a result of criminal justice racism,” she also claimed that young black males have a "lack of self-discipline", which accounts for their higher school suspension rates.

Bill O'Reilly, has also defended mass incarceration of African Americans, claimed black Americans are "ill-educated," and claimed that Black Lives Matters is "killing Americans."

O'Reilly basically did the segment to give the biased MacDonald an open forum to criticize Black Lives Matter protests against excessive use of force by police, while ignoring the very reason why the protests happened in the first place -- the killing of unarmed blacks at the hands of police for low level offenses.

While not having any guests during the segment (or after it) to provide an opposing view, or to point out how they both cherry picked and misrepresented the actual report.

Google Takes Steps To Ban Fake Right-Wing News Stories
November 17, 2016 - 10:00am

Notice that O'Reilly complains about the so-called liberal media bias, even though Trump won, but never says a word about fake right-wing media stories on Google or Facebook.

Google announced it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service, a decision that comes as concerns mount over the impact online hoaxes may have had on the presidential election.

Facebook has also faced criticism over the proliferation of fake news on the site, but will need to take larger steps to address their problem.

According to the NY Times, Google decided to "extend its ban on misrepresentative content to the websites its advertisements run on."

Google announced it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service, a decision that comes as concerns mount over the impact online hoaxes may have had on the presidential election.

The decision relates to the Google AdSense system that independent web publishers use to display advertising on their sites, generating revenue when ads are seen or clicked on. The advertisers pay Google, and Google pays a portion of those proceeds to the publishers. More than two million publishers use Google's advertising network.

For some time, Google has had policies in place prohibiting misleading advertisements from its system, including promotions for counterfeit goods and weight-loss scams. Google's new policy, which it said would go into effect very soon, will extend its ban on misrepresentative content to the websites its advertisements run on.

Facebook has also been in the middle of that debate, accused by some commentators of swinging some voters in favor of President-elect Donald J. Trump through misleading and outright false stories that spread quickly via the social network. One such false story claimed that Pope Francis had endorsed Mr. Trump.

Google, too, faced criticism after the election for giving prominence to false news stories. On Sunday, the site Mediaite reported that the top result on a Google search for the words final election vote count 2016 was a link to a story on a website called 70News that falsely stated that Mr. Trump, who won the Electoral College, was ahead of his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, in the popular vote.

By Monday evening, the fake story had fallen to the No. 2 position in a search for those terms.

Facebook also announced that it will ban fake news sites form using the company's advertising network to generate revenue, after facing intense criticism following election of Trump because of the fake right-wing news that spread on the site throughout the campaign.

But Facebook still allows fake news to be spread on users feeds where they can generate revenue. Facebook officials even admit that the site could have updated their News Feed feature which would have identified fake news stories but claimed it would have disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds.

In other words, they did not do it because almost all the fake news was from right-wing sources, and they did not want to be seen as anti-Republican, so they let people post fake news stories, that most likely helped Trump win.

But O'Reilly says nothing, now imagine what he would say if the left was doing it and Clinton had won, he would call for Google and Facebook to be shut down and lose his mind reporting on it for weeks, if not months. But when Republicans do it he is silent.

O'Reilly Asks Trump If He Will Sue Access Hollywood Over Sex Talk Tape
November 17, 2016 - 9:00am

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the media has a thing called freedom of the press, look it up some time.

And btw folks, when tapes are leaked of Democrats caught on a hot mic O'Reilly never asks anyone if they plan to sue, in fact, he plays the leaked tapes over and over, to make the Democrat look as bad as possible.

But when tapes are leaked of a Republican, O'Reilly does not play it even one time, let alone over and over, then asks the guy if he plans to sue the media over it.

Here is a partial transcript of the biased O'Reilly and the clown Trump:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I got one more question about the campaigning. Do you believe you would be ahead, if not for the Access Hollywood stuff?

DONALD TRUMP: I just don't know. I think it was very negative. It was locker room talk. The microphone was not supposed to be on, not that I make that as an excuse for myself, but certainly it was illegal act that was NBC. It was not supposed to be on.

O'REILLY: You think it was illegal, what they did, putting that tape out?

TRUMP: Oh, absolutely. No, that was a private locker -- you know, that was a private dressing room. Yeah, that was certainly --

O'REILLY: Are you going to take any action after the election against NBC?

TRUMP: Well, you'll see. You will see.

O'REILLY: Well, you know -- so, it's possible you might?

TRUMP: You're going to see after the election, but I will -- I will tell you, first of all, it shouldn't have been said, but it was -- you know, it was locker room talk and, yeah, I mean, you know, we're going to find out soon enough. I will tell you.

Student Journalist Slams O'Reilly For Using Illegal Immigrants
November 17, 2016 - 8:00am

Here is a partial transcript:

LIAM KNOX: First of all, I just want to say referring to these students, these immigrants as "illegal immigrants" is I think a little inaccurate. People can't be illegal, their actions can be illegal. These are undocumented students, undocumented immigrants.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Alright, let me stop you there.

KNOX: I'll answer your question now, though.

O'REILLY: Let me stop you there. Wait, wait -- Mr. Knox, let me stop you there.

KNOX: Sure.

O'REILLY: OK? You are a journalist, you're the editor of the newspaper. Surely, you know --

KNOX: I'm one of the news editors, but yeah.

O'REILLY: Alright, whatever it is, you're practicing journalism at Tufts University.

KNOX: That's right, yeah.

O'REILLY: Surely you know there is a federal law that prohibits people from crossing into this country without proper certification --

KNOX: Yes, yes and they can --

O'REILLY: Or overstaying their visas once they are granted. That is a crime.

KNOX: Yeah, I don't think you totally understood what I said. I think -- I'm saying people can't be illegal, so they can be illegally immigrants is different --

O'REILLY: Therefore, they are branded illegal aliens, alright --

KNOX: Yeah, but that branding is a little dehumanizing.

O'REILLY: Alright, now that's not for you to say.

KNOX: I think that what they're protesting today --

O'REILY: As a reporter, that is not for you to say. If you're writing an editorial --

KNOX: Sure, I think it is the job of all reporters to say.

O'REILLY: No, it is not.

KNOX: I think that media -- one of the media's problems today --

O'REILLY: You're gonna flunk your journalism class. You are supposed to report the facts. Now, what are the facts of kids walking out of Tufts today? Why are they doing it?

KNOX: I'll tell you what the facts are. I can tell you that, and I stand by my previous comments too.

So, this isn't just about protesting Donald Trump. At Tufts and at other universities, a lot of the movements are about pressuring institutions to uphold their sort of -- a lot of them have issued statements post-election about their unwavering values, a lot of rhetoric has come out about sort of sticking to the liberal values, sort of sticking to protecting undocumented students. Specifically at Tufts, students were asking Tufts to designate the campus a sanctuary campus, which would mean actual, practical implications, which would mean that immigration officials couldn't come in.

Lie About Denzel Washington Perfect Example Of Facebook Fake News
November 16, 2016 - 10:00am

Facebook does not just have a fake news problem; Facebook has a fake news crisis.

The popular social network where tens of millions of Americans get their news is overridden with blatantly, completely fake news articles, mostly from right-wing news outlets.

And since Facebook fired its human editors in the wake of conservatives throwing a hissy fit earlier this year, the site's trending topics section is similarly overridden.

Facebook is actively helping put misinformation into its users news feeds. This is reflected perfectly in this Denzel Washington fake news article that said he was now a Trump supporter, which is a total lie.

This Facebook trending story is 100% made up. Nothing in it is true. The post of it has 10,000 shares in the last six hours, and over 300,000 total.

As Snopes has documented, this completely made up meme began in August but was still circulating on Facebook -- with Facebook's stamp of approval -- nearly three months later.

In a New York Times opinion piece, University of North Carolina professor Zeynep Tufekci explained how Facebook founder and head Mark Zuckerberg was in denial about the impact of fake news:

I encountered thousands of such fake stories last year on social media -- and so did American voters, 44 percent of whom use Facebook to get news.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief, believes that it is "a pretty crazy idea" that "fake news on Facebook, influenced the election in any way."

In holding fast to the claim that his company has little effect on how people make up their minds, Mr. Zuckerberg is doing real damage to American democracy -- and to the world.

He is also contradicting Facebook's own research.

In 2010, researchers working with Facebook conducted an experiment on 61 million users in the United States right before the midterm elections. One group was shown a go vote message as a plain box, while another group saw the same message with a tiny addition: thumbnail pictures of their Facebook friends who had clicked on I voted.

Using public voter rolls to compare the groups after the election, the researchers concluded that the second post had turned out hundreds of thousands of voters.

In 2012, Facebook researchers again secretly tweaked the newsfeed for an experiment: Some people were shown slightly more positive posts, while others were shown slightly more negative posts. Those shown more upbeat posts in turn posted significantly more of their own upbeat posts; those shown more downbeat posts responded in kind.

Decades of other research concurs that people are influenced by their peers and social networks.

All of this renders preposterous Mr. Zuckerberg's claim that Facebook, a major conduit for information in our society, has no influence.

And there is no indication that Facebook is prepared to address this fake news proliferation at the scale it demands. Snopes has a list of some fake news sites, but as BuzzFeed's Craig Silverman has documented, these sites are so easy to set up that by the time you read this dozens more may have been created.

When Google announced that it would no longer allow fake news sites access to its advertiser database, Facebook quickly followed suit. This may work for Google, but Facebook's infection is much deeper than that. These websites aren't simply paying Facebook for promotion -- they're gaming Facebook's algorithm using blatant lies to get promotion in users feeds for free.

So Facebook bans fake news from making ad money, but doesn't ban fake news from users feeds where it makes ad money, unreal. No social media site should allow any fake news, ever, for anything. It's all about money, they want to make that money from ads, and they could care less that they are allowing people to get fake news.

Ethics Experts Raise Concerns Over Trump's Transition Team
November 16, 2016 - 9:00am

But of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly.

Some in the Media are reporting on concerns raised by watchdogs and government-ethics experts that President-elect Donald Trump is creating avenues for corruption by failing to put his business dealings in a true blind trust.

Instead, Trump says he will hand over those business dealings to his children -- but his children are also serving on Trump’s White House transition team, where, experts note, they are in a position to help choose the people who make regulatory decisions impacting the businesses they will run.

The Washington Post reported on November 9 that many recent presidents have gone beyond legal requirements and "placed their assets in blind trusts, run by third-party managers who keep complete control."

During the campaign, ethics officials urged President-elect Donald Trump "to pledge he would sell his businesses or cede them to an independent authority," but he "has refused to make such a pledge, saying only that he would give companies to his children and executives to run."

Reuters reported that daughter Ivanka and sons Eric and Donald Jr. and son-in-law Jared Kushner accounted for a fourth of Trump’s 16-member transition team, which he announced after the election.

A CNN Money article reported that ethics experts say Trump's arrangement to hand over control of his businesses to his children "doesn’t go far enough to ensure that Trump's presidential duties don't clash with his money-making dealings."

The article further reported that "ethics experts, from both sides of the political aisle, say that no president has ever come into office with such potential entanglements. And that opens Trump to scrutiny and potential corruption allegations -- even if he hands control to his children."

The Washington Post reported that ethics watchdogs and political law experts are skeptical of Trump's moves, with Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center calling his blind trust a "one-eye-closed-and-one-eye-open trust."

The paper says others "note that his children will now also have control over the people who will be put in charge of regulatory decisions that could affect his multi-billion-dollar fortune."

Former FEC chairman Trevor Potter called the number of problems that could emerge from Trump's business conflicts mind-boggling. Potter pointed to Trump's new Washington, D.C., hotel noting that any changes in the lease would be made through the head of the General Services Administration -- whom Trump will appoint.

Potter also highlighted conflicts emerging from Trump having loans from foreign banks that his administration will regulate, as well as Trump's pending lawsuits working their way through federal court.

Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, told CNN that Trump's planned actions are insufficient and that he must "unwind the business relationships with any foreign governments or company controlled by foreign governments" by the time he's sworn in as president.

In a report on NPR, Public Citizen president Robert Weissman criticized Trump's move to put his children in charge of his businesses, stating, "The idea that there's some independence there is laughable."

Former FEC chairmen Karl Sandstrom and Robert Lenhard said Trump's arrangements "were unprecedented and present a host of issues," adding that the setup was "in no way a blind trust."

O'Reilly Tells Megyn Kelly To Be Loyal To The Company
November 16, 2016 - 8:00am

Basically what he is saying is if you do not like being sexually harassed, quit. And that she should shut up because Fox pays her a salary, and if she talks it makes them look bad. So he is saying he supports sexual harassment by corporate bosses if you are getting paid to do a job.

I wonder if he would think the same thing if his daughter was getting sexually harassed by some old fat creep, 30 years older than her and in a position of power. Somehow I very much doubt it.

Here is a partial transcript from the moron O'Reilly.

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): This morning James Patterson and I were on CBS This Morning discussing "Give Please A Chance" when the conversation shifted to some problems the Fox News Channel had earlier this year. I was not amused.

So here's the deal. If somebody is paying you a wage, you owe that person or company allegiance. If you don't like what's happening in the workplace, go to human resources or leave. I've done that.

And then take the action you need to take afterward if you feel aggrieved. There are labor laws in this country. But don't run down the concern that supports you by trying to undermine it. Factor Tip of The Day: Loyalty is good.

House Republicans Kill Trump's Wall And Mass Deportations Promises
November 15, 2016 - 10:00am

House Republicans came back to Washington, and the first thing that they did was kill Donald Trump's wall with Mexico, and his plan for a mass deportation of immigrants.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said there will not be a wall or mass deportations.

In other words, the House majority leader does not foresee the construction of a 1,900-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border -- a key component of Trump's platform.

McCarthy also suggested that Trump didn't really mean what he said about another cornerstone of his campaign: mass deportations.

House Republicans just rolled back into town, took a look at Trump's agenda, and removed two of his top four goals. There is not going to be a wall, and only immigrants with criminal records are going to be deported.

One can see the fight between the Trump White House and Congressional Republicans. The problem for Trump was always going to be that he doesn't understand how the presidency works.

A Republican Congress won't be a rubber stamp for Trump. It seems that Republicans in Congress are viewing Trump as their rubber stamp.

Donald Trump isn't even in office yet, and the GOP honeymoon is already turning into a nightmare.

Former Breitbart Employee: Breitbart Will Be Propaganda Arm Of White House
November 15, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly will never say a word about any of it, because he will be part of it too, as will all of Fox News. Now that Trump is the President they will lie for, defend and excuse everything Trump says and does.

Just imagine what O'Reilly would say if Clinton had won and put the head of MSNBC in charge of running the White House, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for her to be horse whipped and impeached.

Here is a partial transcript:

CHRIS CUOMO (HOST): Kurt Bardella, there are words being used to describe [Stephen] Bannon, that he represents the Republican fringe. I would say that that's untrue. There are many Republicans, in fact, there are a few who want to own Steve Bannon and his politics, and that what comes out of Breitbart often plays on what's called tropes by the media. I would argue they are not tropes. These are often at least deceptive and often hateful headlines to drive separation in our society. You worked for them. Why? And what did you learn when you were there?

KURT BARDELLA: Well, you know, I think that they represent a worldview that is incredibly dangerous and divisive and to have this kind of proximity to the White House -- I mean, Breitbart's gone from being the propaganda arm of the Trump campaign to now being the propaganda arm of the federal government, essentially, in a Trump White House.

And I think that should be very concerning to all Americans right now. Because any day that you look at their site, one, it is about one perspective, one agenda, and it's completely devoid of reality and facts. And it's all about speaking to the worst divisions amongst the American people and their worst fears to try to advance a very narrow-minded agenda that is designed to just create conflict and, in this case, to prop up their strong man, Donald Trump.

CUOMO: By the way, look, the way you just said it is fine. People will agree, they'll disagree. But what Breitbart does, whether they're targeting me or they're targeting other people in the media, is they deceive, they distort context, and they do it to advance an agenda that the media is against you and that everything is the left and that the system is the left and that this is about a race war and about white America being put down. And now you have that guy in the White House, speaking for all Americans. Is that good?

You think that Rush Limbaugh would be a good guy to have as a president's top strategist? With him spending all of his time trying to divide this country?

BARDELLA: You talk about divisiveness. The divisiveness comes from people like Jeffrey Lord who go on TV every single day and flat out lie to the American people and are completely devoid of what's actually happening and what's real. I'll tell you what is really happening.

The first thing Donald Trump does basically is go on Twitter and advance a lie about The New York Times and their subscription rates with no fact. It turns out to be untrue. We're never going to hear him back down and say, you know what, I got that wrong, I shouldn't have done it. What about the fact that the president, one of the first things he wants to do is attack the media, attack the free press.

That is one of the most dangerous things happening right now, is that for the next four years, free press is going to be under assault, under attack, and that's all that they're going to do, and that should be incredibly worrisome to anybody who cares about the fabric of this country that one of the fundamental tenets that our nation was built upon, the ability to have a free press, an interactive press that can ask the questions on behalf of the American people and report the truth, that that is going to come under assault, every minute of every day directly by the president.

O'Reilly Rejects FBI Findings Of Increase In Hate Crimes
November 15, 2016 - 8:00am

Monday the FBI released its annual tally of hate crimes, with numbers that confirmed the fears of Muslim advocacy groups: a 67 percent jump in offenses against Muslims in 2015.

O'Reilly rejects their findings, even though they are true. Because it makes the Trump win look bad, and makes conservative alt-right groups look bad. So much for the no spin zone, it's right-wing spin to deny the numbers. In O'Reillyworld a 67% increase in one year is very low, which is just ridiculous, and a massive increase, especially in a years time.

Here is a partial transcript:

BRIAN LEVIN: One of the things that we have seen though has been you're unanimous support among the most hardened, horrible racist folks. I'm not talking about conservatives of goodwill. Do you know I'm having an evangelical pastor come address my class this week? So, we are not talking about conservative people of goodwill. What I'm saying is we're looking at websites like The Daily Stormer which encouraged their supporters to harass minorities. We are seeing horrible incidents involving --

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): But they have always done that. They have always done that.

LEVIN: No. No. What we're seeing now -- No. No. If you look at something I said on another network four years ago when I was asked, "Who do these hate groups support, is it John McCain is it Mitt Romney? I said, No. This time we have seen Euro-nationalist groups come out and support Donald Trump."

O'REILLY: But you know why that is.

LEVIN: Pardon me?

O'REILLY: You know why they came out and supported Donald Trump. You know why.

LEVIN: Well, it's because of this Euro-nationalist message. O'REILLY: No, no, it was because of the wall. It was as simple as that, because of the wall. He was the only one that said we are going to keep out, you know, drug dealers, and people who shouldn't come here because they don't have proper papers. Come on, that's why they support him.

LEVIN: Bill. If I may though, not all these statements were policy-driven. And you must acknowledge that there have been bigoted statements relating to undocumented crime. Undocumented people have a lower crime rate than the general public at large, for instance. And attacking American Mexican judges --

O'REILLY: The judge thing was because of a civil beef that he is involved with. And he said "because I said build the wall, I can't get a fair play." I didn't think that was a smart thing, professor.

LEVIN: He tweeted stuff from white supremacists.

O'REILLY: But you have to extrapolate the data and the data says at this point in American history, the incidences of hate crime that we know about are very low. Very low.

Brian Stelter Calls On Reporters To Value Truth And Facts
November 14, 2016 - 10:00am

Here is a partial transcript:

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take power, journalists have a lot of questions about Trump and about our profession. Did fact-checking matter in this election? Did investigations matter? Did newspaper editorials matter? Did the accountability function of journalism matter at all?

Well, yes, it did matter to some people, to some readers and viewers, but maybe something else mattered even more, something I would call anti-media. Breitbart is anti-media. Much of Fox News is anti-media. Fake news websites and some right-wing blogs are anti-media.

These outlets provide a different audience with a different set of facts about the world, but too often what they're really selling are opinion and conspiracy theory masquerading as fact. These sites, these outlets, they present themselves as the opposite of traditional news sources, the antidote to mainstream media.

Andrew Golis of Vox recently said Facebook feeds into this sense of unreality. I like to call it choose your own news, but whatever you call it, a lot of the arguments we're having right now as a country are a result of this media versus anti-media clash. In the coming months, I hope researchers will hone in on how anti-media persuaded voters in this election, because today I cannot sit here and tell you I have that I have all the answers or even many of the answers.

But I do know that all journalists -- all real journalists -- have a responsibility to the truth, and it is not elitist to value the truth. The truth is not in a bubble. It is not elitist to reject conspiracy theories or fact-check obvious falsehoods.

It should be done equally, but truth is the word we can keep coming back to. Don't cower before the truth. Don't tell half-truths, don't shade the truth. Don't fear the truth. And then we can focus on the other "t" word -- trust. Winning back the trust of people who right now prefer anti-media.

Fox Host Slams Juan Williams For Calling Trump A Racist
November 14, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is a partial transcript:

BOLLING: Mrs. Clinton was very gracious, yesterday I hear a lot of very negative lefties all over the TV yesterday and today, not being quite so gracious about Donald Trump.

WILLIAMS: Oh no, I'm gracious, but I'm going to tell you when you diminish people's legitimate concerns about a man with a record that he has on race --

BOLLING: Juan --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Nobody is doing that.

WILLIAMS: On women, --

BOLLING: Juan, you called the president-elect a racist last night.

WILLIAMS: I think that his behavior -- it's not just me, how about Paul Ryan?

GUILFOYLE: Well let me tell you something, that's not --

WILLIAMS: How about the Speaker of the House? He said this is classic definition of racism.

BOLLING: Let me tell you something, there was none that was from Obama, there was none of that from Clinton.

WILLIAMS: Fine.

BOLLING: At least for a time being, there should be --

GUILFOYLE: And nobody ever did that here about President Obama.

BOLLING: -- A truce called on that rhetoric. You want to pick it up later? Go ahead.

GUILFOYLE: It's very disrespectful, and it's inappropriate.

WILLIAMS: You know what? You can't ask people to shut up and close their eyes to who Donald Trump is.

Fox Host Already Lying About Things Trump Said He Would Do
November 14, 2016 - 8:00am

It's started already, when someone points out something crazy Trump said he would do as President the Fox stooges go into propaganda/lying mode and claim he never said it, when we have proof he did.

Fox co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle claimed that President-elect Donald Trump never advocated in favor of blocking Muslims from entry into the United States.

She actually said Juan Williams was making it up, as she was lying for Trump, and making it up. There is proof Trump said it, in transcripts and on video, and everyone knows it, to deny he said it is pure dishonesty. Even Dana Perino admitted he said it, but Guilfoyle did not care, she lied and stood by her lie.

In December of 2015, Trump called for the "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims coming into the U.S.

Trump doubled down in July, arguing that he is "looking at" banning people from certain "territories" where Muslims reside and on November 10 the Trump campaign staff removed, and then restored, Trump's call for banning Muslims on his campaign website.

After denying his call to block Muslims from entering the U.S., Guilfoyle's co-host Dana Perino added that "ban and block" are the same and have the same effect.

From the November 10 edition of Fox News The Five:

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): I think that right now you have to talk about Trump and Republicans, and in specific Speaker Paul Ryan, because -- Ryan is a guy, for example, who is all about things like, you know, "let's make some cuts to things like Social Security, let's balance this budget, let's get it back working," right?

And you -- what do you hear from Trump? "I will never touch Social Security, I will never touch Medicare, I will never touch Medicaid."

And when it comes to the wall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said I won't even bring up the wall, I mean, I'm not going to pay for some wall. So, you have to start to think about, what about a deportation force to get out all these -- You know what?

I think the Republicans are going to be like, "Uh, excuse me sir, what are you talking about? Oh, should we block Muslims from coming into the country? President Trump, can we slow down? Let's talk about something else."

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Well, he never said he was blocking Muslims from coming to the country -- WILLIAMS: Yeah, it was --

GUILFOYLE: -- so now you are just making up things.

WILLIAMS: Oh, but that's true, what fiction, what fiction.

DANA PERINO (CO-HOST): Ban and block are the -- kind of the same.

Trump Is Already Censoring The Press
November 11, 2016 - 10:00am

Less than two days after winning the presidential election, Donald Trump is already censoring the press by not allowing them to travel with him to the White House for his meeting with President Obama.

The press gave Donald Trump a big assist towards election victory by pretending that the then Republican nominee's real transgressions were equal to the fantasy crimes of Hillary Clinton. The both candidates are terrible narrative gave Trump the political cover that he needed to skate through a campaign that would have destroyed any other candidate of either party.

The corporate press also helped Trump by giving him billions of dollars worth of free media coverage.

The president-elect is showing his gratitude by censoring the press. The press whines about all presidents not giving them more access, but Trump showed his hand early by going dark and not holding a press conference for the entire general election campaign. Trump avoided mainstream journalists and took no questions.

Nothing is going to change now that he has won.

The media helped Donald Trump win the election, and their reward is a president who will treat them like the enemy and be the least transparent commander in chief in history.

Sheriff Who Called For Pitchforks And Torches Denounces Anti-Trump Protests
November 11, 2016 - 8:30am

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who urged Americans to pick up pitchforks and torches last month in response to what he called a rigged system, on Wednesday denounced thousands of Americans for demonstrating against the president-elect's stunning victory over Hillary Clinton.

"These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people," Clarke said on Twitter, even though the former secretary of state won the popular vote.

The conservative sheriff - who Politico reports is a possible candidate for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in Donald Trump's administration - made a call to arms last month. At the time, he echoed Trump's unfounded allegations that branches of government and the media are corrupt.

Thousands of people around the U.S. took to city streets on Wednesday to protest Trump's election with signs that read Not My President. Protesters in several cities converged around Trump's properties, like Trump Tower in New York City.

O'Reilly Claims Anti-Trump Protests Are A Sign Civil War Is Brewing
November 11, 2016 - 7:30am

So much for O'Reilly only deals in the facts, now he is speculating that because people are protesting a Trump win there is a civil war coming. Even though it will never happen, and he knows it. Not to mention this, if Clinton had won and the Republicans had protested her, he would be defending them and saying they have the right to protest.

Even time a liberal does a protest O'Reilly speculates the end of the world is coming, and then nothing happens and he is wrong. And he does this while saying he never speculates and only deals in facts, which is just laughable.

Here is what the Trump loving right-wing fool said:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Is there a civil war brewing in the U.S.A.? That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. As we mentioned last night, the voters rebelled and Donald Trump won the presidency because of that rebellion. Just a few hours after the election was called though, some anti-Trump protesters took to the streets. Nothing major but the spectacle got intense in Oakland.

The main beef seems to be that left-wing protesters don't respect an honest election. By the way, that's a hallmark around the world. Every communist and socialist takeover from Cuba to Venezuela to Soviet Russia back in the early 20th century featured violence and assaults on freedom. Here in the U.S.A. We honor protests, but increasingly we are seeing people who want our system destroyed.

Trump Breaks 40-Year Tradition By Not Releasing Tax Returns
November 8, 2016 - 11:30am

It's official: Donald Trump is the first major party nominee since Gerald Ford not to release his tax returns during the presidential campaign.

The Republican nominee announced his bid for the White House on June 16, 2015, from the lobby of Trump Tower, the Manhattan symbol of his real estate empire. Almost immediately after he did so, questions began to swirl about his net worth and how much of it he would use to bankroll his campaign.

So the following month, in July, Trump's campaign filed a disclosure with the FEC and issued a statement that claimed he has a massive net worth that is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS. At the time, Forbes listed his net worth at merely $4.5 billion. And earlier this year, Forbes re-evaluated the number at $3.7 billion, down $800 million from 2015.

Initially, the media reacted to the statement with amusement. It was at the time considered as unserious as Trump's candidacy - conventional wisdom that soon fell apart. But the episode was an early sign as to how Trump planned to run for president - evading transparency and accountability at every turn by refusing to release the very document that could unravel the narrative he sold of a successful, wealthy and charitable businessman.

Trump's tax returns could also offer answers to questions about his business dealings abroad - especially in adversarial countries like Russia. During the campaign, Democrats suggested he refused to do so because he was beholden to leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin, a man Trump has praised at length.

Far more concerning, however, is the precedent Trump may have created for future nominees. If he loses by a smaller-than-expected margin on Tuesday, the real estate mogul will have created a path for other candidates to run a viable campaign for president while withholding sensitive but pertinent information from the voters.

One wealthy down-ballot Republican, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, for example, has already begun dragging his feet in doing so.

Big Trouble For Trump As Voter Turnout Explodes Among Blacks & Hispanics
November 8, 2016 - 11:00am

Voter turnout among African American and Hispanic voters in the United States is surging, and this swell of minority participation could spell trouble for Donald Trump's White House hopes.

On Sunday - the last day of early voting before Election Day on November 8 - hundreds of people attended Souls to the Polls events, aimed at encouraging churchgoers to vote across the key swing state of Florida.

Some came straight from morning worship, wearing three-piece suits and dresses as they made their way past dozens of campaigners hoisting signs for local candidates and urging support for solar energy and education issues.

At one event in central Miami, people held hands and prayed outside an early voting site, while at another in southern Miami-Dade County, about 20 African American men rolled in together on motorcycles.

Obama Now Viewed More Positively Than Ronald Reagan Was In 1988
November 8, 2016 - 10:00am

And of course you will never see this reported by O'Reilly on the Factor, while he claims Obama has been a disaster, even though his average approval rating is higher than Ronald (Fricking) Reagan, the Republican God of politics.

Pollster.com's Charles Franklin was a little ahead of the curve Sunday morning when he pointed out that President Obama's approval rating right now is among the highest Election-Day approval ratings in recent history.

Franklin tracked recent survey results by party to evaluate Obama's approval, finding that, at 52.1 percent on average, he's viewed more positively now than Ronald Reagan was at the end of his second term, but not as positively as was Bill Clinton at the end of his.

On Election Day 2012, Obama was right at 50 percent, according to Gallup. For past presidents, we have to interpolate from poll numbers on either side of Election Day.

But Franklin appears to be right: Obama's more popular now than was Reagan in 1988 -- or any modern era president in office at election time in the past four decades except Clinton in 2000.

Trickle-Down Economics News You Will Never See O'Reilly Report
November 8, 2016 - 9:00am

Here is a news story you will never see O'Reilly report, because it destroys his lie that tax cuts for the wealthy and business owners raise revenue and lower the debt, it's all a lie from O'Reilly, Trump, and the Republican party. The Kansas story proves it, but O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, while arguing for what the Republicans did in Kansas, even though it is not working.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, the Republican responsible for the state's business-friendly tax policies, is now trying to erase any evidence of just how wildly unsuccessful his Reaganomics experiment has proved.

Last month the state's Council of Economic Advisors, which Brownback created in 2011 and still chairs, quietly discontinued quarterly reports originally intended to showcase the state's rapid economic growth. (During Brownback's re-election campaign in 2014, the reports were scrubbed from the internet and subsequently available only upon request.)

The council issued what ended up being its last report in May.

Brownback "specifically asked the council to hold him accountable through rigorous performance metrics," Heidi Holliday, executive director of the Kansas Center for Economic Growth, told The Topeka Capital-Journal.

"Five years later, the metrics clearly show his tax experiment has failed while business leaders and local chambers of commerce across the state openly ask him to change course."

Brownback ran for governor in 2010 on an archaic small-state economic platform that promised widespread tax cuts for business owners and high-income earners.

These cuts (amounting to cents on the dollar, essentially, for individuals) went into effect in 2012, and subsequent years of revenue losses have gutted public infrastructure and diminished quality of life in the state.

Krauthammer Predicts The Republican Party Will Split In Two
November 8, 2016 - 8:00am

Krauthammer said this Monday night on Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Trump can win. But let's assume he loses. He's not a Michael Dukakis, he's not walking away. He's not a Bob Dole who's going to retire. This is a man who, as he says, created a movement out of nothing. He basically fashioned a populist faction in the Republican Party, took over the party -- at least in this cycle -- and then the question will be, "Is he going to walk away and go back and become a business man?" I doubt it, it's very hard to do. The fact is he will be the power broker.

I see the party sort of splitting in two, at least in theory. The populist element he has now created and mobilized -- winning more Republican votes in the primary than any candidate in history. He will have won at least 40%, somewhere in the 40s, of the national electorate. Yes, he is a force.

The other side I think will be led by Paul Ryan, representing the traditional party, the Regan-ite party, the wonk-ish party, the progromatic, and conservative party, which is different from populism. And if Trump wants, which I think he will -- he will have created something.

Why will he leave it behind? He leads that faction and can become the de facto leader. I think the test is going to be, can he bring down Paul Ryan, who will be -- if Trump loses, will be scapegoated to some extent in the loss and will be the leader of the rival faction.

Insane O'Reilly Does Not Think Trump Is Worse Than Clinton
November 8, 2016 - 7:00am

Because he is a biased right-wing hack who is friends with Trump, so he spins for him and defends every crazy, hate-filled racist thing he says. Trump is 10 times worse than Clinton, O'Reilly just will not admit it, or does not see it, because Trump is his friend and he is a Republican.

Here is what the biased hack said Monday night:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I can't tell you that Donald Trump is corrupt. I can't tell you that. I don't know, I haven't studied his business model, but he has never been indicted for anything. He has never been charged with anything, and he is the most rough and tumble industry you can possibly be in, real estate and gambling, alright?

So, I'm not -- people are saying he is so much worse than Hillary Clinton and I'm going on what level? I'm not supporting Trump or Hillary, I'm just asking questions.

Trump Supporters Planned Voter Intimidation Using Fake ID Badges
November 7, 2016 - 10:00am

Vote Protectors, the group hosted by Donald Trump ally and political dirty trickster Roger Stone, plans to send thugs to monitor polling places in nine cities with high minority populations on Election Day, Stone said last week. Untrained poll-watchers have intimidated voters in previous elections. But Vote Protectors is going further than its predecessors.

Stone's group created an official-looking (but bogus) ID badge for its volunteers to wear, and its volunteers planned to videotape voters and conduct fake exit polls, efforts that election experts say risks intimidating and confusing voters.

Or at least that's what the group was planning to do before The Huffington Post asked Stone about it on Tuesday. The controversial Trump ally, long known for his bare-knuckled political tactics, said that key proposals on his group's websites were there without his knowledge, and assured HuffPost that he would operate within the confines of election law.

Stone had initially refused to explain just how Vote Protectors planned to accomplish its goals. So on Monday, The Huffington Post responded to the group's request for additional volunteers to work as Exit Pollers and Citizen Journalists.

For Danielle Lang, the deputy director of voting rights at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, the Vote Protectors emphasis on posting livestream video of voters to the internet is especially disturbing.

"It's inherently intimidating and an invasion of privacy" to videotape private citizens at the polls without their consent, Lang told HuffPost. "When that's being livestreamed to the internet, it amplifies the potentially intimidating aspect of it, and violates a sense of security and privacy people have a right to enjoy at the polls."

Basically, anyone could go to their website and create a fake ID badge that looked official, then print it out and go to a polling place and pretend to be a state worker, which is illegal and fraud.

When the Huffington Post made it public they removed it from their website and said they would stop doing it, now the question is, do they still plan to do it, and do they have a secret website link where you can still make the badge. But of course O'Reilly is not reporting it, and if you watch his show you would never know about any of it.

O'Reilly Does Misleading Segment About Police Violence On Blacks & Whites
November 7, 2016 - 9:00am

Their Own Data Shows Lethal Police Force Against Nonviolent Black Offenders Is More Than 3 Times Higher Than Whites. But that is not what O'Reilly and his biased guest reported.

Bill O'Reilly invited the conservative Heather MacDonald from the Manhattan Institute on to argue that police do not use force against blacks at a greater rate than whites for violent felonies.

MacDonald and O'Reilly both ignored that police use lethal force against blacks at a much higher rate for nonviolent arrests.

On the October 25 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted MacDonald who claimed that "actually, if there's a bias in police shootings it works in favor of blacks. White felons are more likely to be shot by the police following the arrest for violent felony than blacks are," citing data from the Center for Police Equity (CPE) showing that police used lethal force more against whites in violent felonies:

Here is what they did, MacDonald cherry-picked data from the CPE used in her Wall Street Journal column which actually found that lethal force was used more often on white individuals than black individuals only in the context of violent crime.

But the study found that overall "the mean use of force rate for black citizens was higher than that for white citizens in all categories" and "When controlling for resident arrests for violent Part I offenses, racial disparities that disadvantaged blacks persisted in weapon use and the use of OC spray," according to the July, 2016, report.

The report's analysis revealed "a robust racial disparity benchmarked to population such that blacks receive a mean use of force score -- a combination of counts and severity -- that is roughly 3.8 times higher than whites:

MacDonald has a history of citing biased data and making inflammatory remarks about black violence. Not only has she said that there is no evidence "that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison or arrest statistics is a result of criminal justice racism,” she also claimed that young black males have a "lack of self-discipline", which accounts for their higher school suspension rates.

Bill O'Reilly, has also defended mass incarceration of African Americans, claimed black Americans are "ill-educated," and claimed that Black Lives Matters is "killing Americans."

O'Reilly basically did the segment to give the biased MacDonald an open forum to criticize Black Lives Matter protests against excessive use of force by police, while ignoring the very reason why the protests happened in the first place -- the killing of unarmed blacks at the hands of police for low level offenses.

While not having any guests during the segment (or after it) to provide an opposing view, or to point out how they both cherry picked and misrepresented the actual report.

GOP Ready To Give Up And Pull The Plug On Trump's Dying Campaign
November 3, 2016 - 10:00am

The RNC is holding members-only call tomorrow, where it is possible that they will raise the white flag on the presidential race by cutting off Donald Trump.

Politico reported on an RNC members only call that is taking place on Wednesday:

The RNC chairman last held a nationwide conference call two weeks ago, shortly after damaging revelations emerged that Donald Trump, in 2005, had bragged about sexually assaulting women. During that call, Priebus informed members that the committee would be standing by its besieged presidential nominee, despite a flurry of rumors to the contrary.

The committee is continuing to pour resources into Trump's presidential bid, even as his poll numbers crater and GOP strategists worry about maintaining the party's congressional majorities.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from the timing of this call, which was described as a political update, is that Priebus is going to announce that the Republican Party is finally taking the Trump campaign off of life support and redirecting their dwindling resources toward saving endangered Republican Senators.

Priebus wouldn't be holding a private call with RNC members only if the news was good.

The RNC has continued to fund Trump's campaign activities even after the Access Hollywood tape was released and the GOP nominee got trounced in the final two presidential debates.

Donald Trump doesn't have a campaign operation of his own. He is dependent on the RNC for everything from rally organization to get out the vote efforts. Trump has no data operation, no real advertising operation, and no grassroots organization.

If the RNC cuts off Trump, the Republican Party will be effectively conceding the White House to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican Party appears to be finally be getting the message that funding Trump's campaign is a waste of time and money.

Top Hispanic Republican In Texas Says He Will Vote For Clinton
November 3, 2016 - 9:00am

From the Texas Tribune:

A leading Hispanic Republican in Texas says he has decided to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Lionel Sosa, a veteran ad maker from San Antonio, told The Texas Tribune on Monday he will cast his ballot for Clinton to send a clear statement against Republican nominee Donald Trump's candidacy.

"I want to make sure that I do everything I can to see that Trump doesn't get elected," said Sosa, who has worked for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. "I'm doing this because I don't think he's a good representative of the Republican Party. It's not the Republican Party I know."

Sosa announced in June that he was leaving the GOP over Trump, writing in a San Antonio Express-News op-ed that Trump's divisive candidacy left him with no choice. Two months later, Sosa joined the campaign of Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, though Sosa said Monday that move did not amount to a strong enough rebuke of Trump.

"If I vote for Gary Johnson, it's not enough of a statement," said Sosa, who had been helping Johnson on a volunteer basis. "I must make a statement that Donald Trump cannot win."

The Trump Campaign Has Spent More On Hats Than On Polling
November 2, 2016 - 10:00am

And they wonder why they are losing, give me a break.

According to the Federal Election Commission filings, Donald Trump's presidential campaign has spent $1.8 million on polling from June 2015 through September of this year (the most recent month for which data are available).

The report also lists $3.2 million spent on hats.

Trump has probably spent more on hats than he has spent on direct mail. The campaign filings occasionally aggregate a few things from the same vendor under one line-item, so some of the hat spending was on collateral generally that includes some hats.

His campaign spent more than $2 million on a line-item that was exclusively hats, though. Overall, Trump's spent about $15.3 million on collateral -- shirts, hats, signs, etc. -- more than he has spent on field consulting and voter lists and data.

He has spent at least twice as much on collateral as he has on payroll.

In one apparent concession to the traditions of running a political campaign, Trump has at least started spending more on ads.

The FEC reports don't go into great detail about what is or isn't ad spending, so they included things like direct mail, telemarketing services (which probably went to fundraising), the campaign's website and digital outreach and so on.

Trump Campaign Admits They Are Using Voter Suppression Tactics
November 2, 2016 - 9:00am

The Trump campaign is publicly admitting that they are trying to win the election with three voter suppression efforts targeting white liberals, young women, and African-Americans.

Bloomberg reported:

To compensate for this, Trump's campaign has devised another strategy, which, not surprisingly, is negative. Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. "We have three major voter suppression operations under way," says a senior official.

They're aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump's invocation at the debate of Clinton's WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters.

The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are super predators" is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls -- particularly in Florida.

The effort was obvious, and according to the polling, it is failing.

Voter turnout among young women is expected to rise according to the latest Harvard IOP young voters poll. Sanders started flocking towards Clinton in August, and haven't left, and early voting statistics show that African-American turnout is solid in swing states.

The Trump campaign has realized that they don't have enough votes to win, so they are adopting tactics that run contrary to the heart of democracy to shrink the electorate in critical states.

However, for voter suppression efforts like Trump's to be effective, the campaign must have a credible messenger. Donald Trump is not a credible messenger to any of the voters that he is trying to deter, and he has no effective surrogates that are capable of delivering his message.

A voter suppression effort was expected from the Trump campaign. What is unexpected is that the campaign would publicly brag about it.

People on all sides of the political spectrum who care about basic democratic institutions should be alarmed by Trump’s public attack on democracy.

The good news for all Americans is that Democrats are already fighting back, and the Trump campaign's dark efforts to steal an election appear to be failing.

Trump's Donors Paid For His Private Jet His Hotels And Now His Books
November 2, 2016 - 8:00am

Now if I were a Republican who donated money to the Trump campaign I would be mad that he spent the money on this nonsense.

Donald Trump used small donors money to buy nearly $300,000 worth of books from the publisher of his Art of the Deal last month, continuing a pattern of putting campaign money back into his own businesses.

The Oct. 15 Federal Election Commission filing for Trump Make America Great Again Committee does not specify which books in particular were purchased, but the committee's own website suggests it was Trump's 1987 business bestseller.

"I've signed an out-of-print, hardcover copy of 'The Art of the Deal' just for you, because I want you on board with Team Trump!" Trump wrote in an Aug. 2 fundraising email, which went on to offer the book for a minimum donation of $184.

Trump's statement calling the book out-of-print, repeated on the committee's website, however, is false. The Art of the Deal had a new paperback edition printed last October, and the hardcover is currently in print and available from Random House and retail booksellers. Barnes and Noble is selling it right now for $22.35.

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump claims on his web site that his book, The Art of the Deal, is out of print. It is not, and is available both from his publisher and booksellers. Federal Election Commission Records show that his fundraising committee purchased $300,000 worth of books in August and September.

The Trump Make America Great Again Committee is a joint fundraising operation between the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. An RNC spokeswoman referred a question about the books to the Trump campaign, which did not return phone calls and emails requesting comment.

Random House representatives also did not respond to Huffington Post queries.

While a second joint Trump-RNC committee concentrates on large contributions, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee focuses on small-dollar donations using online and direct-mail fundraising.

As of Sept. 30, 77 percent of all the money it raised came from donors who have given less than $200.

According to the committee's Oct. 15 FEC filing, it paid Penguin/Random House $91,866 on Aug. 30, $98,975 on Sept. 1, and another $98,975 on Sept. 22. The purpose for all three was listed as: "Collateral: Books."

The publishing house has printed five titles by Trump, including How to Get Rich and Think Like a Billionaire. The biggest seller, though, was The Art of the Deal, which was published in 1987 but has remained in print ever since. Trump frequently boasts about it in his campaign speeches, and it is the only one mentioned on the Trump fundraising website.

At the standard bulk discount offered by publishers, Trump's fundraising committee could have purchased some 17,000 copies of the hardcover edition. Under a typical publishing contract, that quantity would generate over $70,000 in royalties, which Trump would have to split with his co-author.

So in other words, Trump made money on the campaign donations, buying his own lame books.

According to Trump's financial disclosure statement filed in May, Trump received between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties for that title over the previous year. The Daily Beast previously reported that Trump spent $55,000 in money from his own campaign to buy copies of his latest book, Crippled America, which was published by Simon and Schuster. Copies were distributed to GOP delegates attending the summer convention in Cleveland.

The purchase of books is just the latest example of Trump using donors money to purchase goods and services from his own businesses and generating personal profit for himself.

Trump houses his campaign headquarters in Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, where the campaign pays $169,758 a month for office space at about $100 per square foot. (The Clinton campaign, in contrast, rents two floors in a Brooklyn Heights office building for about $32 per square foot.)

Trump paid his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach $423,373 on the same day in May that his campaign finalized a deal with the RNC that began bringing him hundreds of millions of dollars of outside donations -- even though the only events he held there were two victory parties and an afternoon news conference two months earlier. He could have held those three events at nearby hotels for a total of about $40,000.

In July, Trump's campaign sent $48,240 to his Westchester County golf course. The only event it had hosted for him was a June 7 victory party. Trump could have used a ballroom at a nearby Marriott hotel for less than half that much.

And Trump's insistence on using his own personal Boeing 757 jet is now costing taxpayers millions of dollars extra. Because Trump's Secret Service detail is making up a large percentage -- and on some days even a majority -- of the flying passengers, the agency must pay a proportionate share of the $10,000-an-hour flying costs.

So in other words, taxpayers are paying Trump money so he can use his own private jet.

Had Trump chosen to charter a more suitable airliner that would accommodate his staff, his security detail and his traveling press corps, as both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and previous GOP nominees have done, he could have driven down the costs for everyone.

Trump's staff has defended his decisions to spend more at his own businesses rather than use less-expensive alternatives by pointing out that he is contributing $2 million a month to his own campaign.

That $2 million figure, however, is dwarfed by the many tens of millions of dollars per month coming to Trump's campaign from both large and small donors.





To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com