Hannity: Lesson Of Gray's Death Is "Don't Run When You See A Cop"
By: Steve - April 30, 2015 - 11:00am

And as usual Hannity has it all wrong, because the lesson is why are there so many bad cops in police jobs. They are trained and they violate that training to rough people up. That sometimes lead to their death. The lesson should be that we need to get rid of the bad cops, and as far as I know, killing someone is not justification for trying to run away.

Not to mention this, the problem started after he was taken into custody, he was fine when they put him in the police van, then after he is at the police station he is out. That means the cops did something to him in the back of that van on tha way to the police station, and that is a fact, but Hannity says he has no idea what happened.

He said this:
HANNITY: I got to be honest, I don't know what the answer to the question is. I don't know why it happened. I know this, I don't know why the kid ran. What is the mindset of someone, they see a cop and they gotta run. Maybe his record had something to do with it. What happened between the time he ran and the time he got in that truck and the time he got some medical care, we don't know what happened yet. It's suspicious to me. But I'm not rushing to judgment.

And his record I mentioned earlier -- it has nothing to do with -- you know, what happened in this case. I assume that it probably was connected to why he ran and his relationship with police at that time. I mean it's pretty extensive. You know there's a simple solution in terms of for other people going forward is: don't be involved in the sale of drugs, don't think police are your enemies, don't run at 8:30 in the morning when you see a cop, and certainly that is a part that he plays in this equation.
What happened is the cops roughed him up in the van, and then did not get him medical help in time to prevent his death, there is no other answer. A simple arrest turned into a man getting killed, while in police custody, so Sean, it's not that hard to figure out, and you are an idiot for saying you do not know what happened.

Those cops killed him somehow, that is a fact, and they should all be put on trial for it. And the people who watch the Hannity show should be checked to see if they have mental problems.

O'Reilly: Racial Persecution Is Not The Problem In Baltimore
By: Steve - April 30, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly: "Racial Persecution Really Isn't The Problem In Baltimore," It's "Personal Behavior"

O'Reilly: It's "Long Past Time For African-American Communities Across America To Begin To Police Themselves"

So let me get this straight, blacks in Baltimore should just let the police abuse and kill them for no reason, and then sit around and do nothing. Wow, O'Reilly seems to get more insane every day, that is just nuts.

Then he said they should police themselves, and if they did then he would say that is chaos and you have to let law enforcement do it. Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing hack of a cable tv news guy, and white. He has no idea what it is like to be a black man that is constantly abused by police, and he has no idea what to do about it.

The answer is to put body cameras on all police, that can not be turned off. Then we would be able to see just what these cops are doing, and get rid of the bad apples. Until they do that police abuse and law breaking will continue, the people know what they cops are doing and since it is not on video they can not prove it.

If we had body cameras the cops would not be able to abuse their authority, and if they do they will get in trouble or even fired for it. O'Reilly said the problem is the people, and he is dead wrong, the problem is the bad cops who abuse their power, and we know there are a lot of them. I have run into some bad cops myself, but I have also seen many good cops.

What we have to do is get rid of the bad cops, it is that simple, and until we do there are going to be more riots and protests, as more video comes out showing the cops violating the law.

Senator Sanders Gives Jobs Reality Check On GOP Budget
By: Steve - April 29, 2015 - 11:00am

Senator Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont dropped a truth bomb on Senate Republicans by revealing that their budget (if passed) would wipe out more than 2.3 million jobs.

Sanders sent letters to the governors of all 50 states that broke down the cuts and job losses that each state would face if the Republican budget is passed. The main point of the letters is that the Republican cuts to transportation, education, and other programs would kill more than 2.3 million jobs across the country.

And of course, the biased right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly has not reported one word about this, because he is a Republican and he is covering for his right-wing friends in Congress.

In a statement, Sen. Sanders said this:
The Republican budget moves this country in exactly the wrong direction. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, it gives huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while making devastating cuts to education, Medicare, affordable housing and prescription drug coverage.

Instead of creating jobs, it will lead to the elimination of more than 2 million jobs.

Instead of making college more affordable, it will increase the cost of college for millions of Americans.

Instead of eliminating hunger in America, it will add to the financial problems of low-income families with children and will create more hunger. This budget is the Robin Hood principle in reverse. It takes from the poor to give to the rich.
And some of the hardest hit states would be those that have Republican governors. Texas would lose 193,000 jobs. Florida would lose 141,000 jobs. Ohio would lose 84,000 jobs. Georgia would lose 70,000 jobs. North Carolina would lose 68,000 jobs, and Wisconsin would lose 46,000 jobs.

It is important that the American people understand exactly what the Republican party budget does. Not only does the Republican budget lower taxes for the wealthiest people while raising them for everyone else, it also kills millions of jobs.

Republicans in Congress don't want to talk about how many services will be cut, and jobs lost because of their budget. Republicans especially don't want to discuss the number of jobs that will be lost in red states due to their budget.

Sanders is exposing the things that Republicans don't want to talk about. He is revealing the ugly truth behind the GOP's economic ideology, and in the process, he is destroying any potential support for their economic ideas outside of the Republican Party.

Sanders has become the tip of the spear that is striking back against failed Republican economic policies and income inequality.

Insane Fox News Idiots Blame Obama For Violence In Baltimore
By: Steve - April 29, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow blamed President Obama and his administration for violence in the wake of the mysterious death of Freddie Gray, who died a week after suffering an unexplained injury while in the custody of Baltimore police officers.

On April 19th, 25-year-old Freddie Gray died of a spinal cord injury that he mysteriously suffered after being arrested on April 12 by police officers. After Gray's funeral on April 27, the governor of Maryland declared a state of emergency in Baltimore and activated the National Guard to respond to violence and looting in the city that resulted in injury to at least 15 police officers.

On the April 27th edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, the host Lou Dobbs responded to the events by blaming the violence against the police on Obama, asserting that "there is a war on law enforcement" that is being "corroborated if not condoned by this administration."

Later during the show, Dobbs invited Fox contributor Keith Ablow to comment, and he also blamed Obama for the violence, adding that people who want to tear down the system like the people in Baltimore might be taking their cues from this president:
DOBBS: I'd like to begin with what drives, in your judgment, a police department and a mayor, who basically have given a free pass to those who are tearing up property, and injuring others, including law enforcement?

ABLOW: What drives them is a lack of respect for the foundation of governing and foundation of law upon which this nation rests. Contempt for such things and a kind of tacit acceptance, that protests can be violent because people are so frustrated. But the bottom line Lou, is that if you want to change things, you work within the system, that is the way it has always been.

If you want to tear down the system, you might be taking your cues, by the way, from a president who has given the appearance that there is every justification for any level of anger at our country because we're such despicable people.
While reporting on the protests earlier in the day, Fox News Shep Smith urged his colleagues to report on the protests objectively by "for now, just covering what happens," instead of indicting the community.

But of course they did not listen to him, and some of them blamed Obama for it, which is just insane. The people to blame are the cops who wrongfully killed Freddie Gray, and the people who did the violence.

And the worst part is that if a liberal blames someone in politics for a protest or violence by Republicans, the people at Fox and Republicans deny it and say there is personal accountability for what each person does. They say the only person to blame is the person who is involved in the violence or the protests.

But somehow when liberals are involved in protests or violence, Republicans blame Obama or someone else, even though he had nothing to do with it. It's the ultimate hypocrisy and a total double standard.

Bill O'Reilly does the very same thing, when he slammed Dr. Tiller over and over on his show for months on end, calling him Tiller the baby killer and saying he was evil, then someone on the right went and killed Dr. Tiller and some people said O'Reilly was partly to blame, O'Reilly denied it and said he had nothing to do with it.

Then a rap artist will put out a rap song that talks about sex and violence and a kid will do something involved with sex or violence, and O'Reilly blames it on the rap song, instead of saying they should have personal accountability for what they did. He says one thing when it involves him ,but another when it does not.

Bill O'Reilly Violates His Own Disclosure Rules
By: Steve - April 28, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly is the so-called Mr. disclosure. He calls for full disclosure from Obama, all the Democrats, and all the liberals. If anyone at MSNBC does not disclose everything at all times O'Reilly loses his mind and calls for the host or MSNBC guest to be fired or punished.

For example, the other day an MSNBC host did an interview with a political analyst who worked for MSNBC that was favorable to Hillary Clinton. The political analyst had a wife who worked as a staffer for Hillary, and that was not disclosed. Even though the wife was not a guest, and was not on the show.

But O'Reilly lost his mind and slammed MSNBC for the non-disclosure.

Now get this, Karl Rove is the senior political analyst for Fox News. And he is one of the most dishonest and biased political analysts on tv, he worked for George W. Bush, and many other Republicans. He was even called Bush's brain, and he is known as one of the most dirty people in politics. He has run some of the most dirty tricks campaigns in history, and he did it himself, not his wife.

O'Reilly has this stooge on the Factor at least once a week as a political analyst, to discuss Obama, Hillary, etc. And not once is there ever a Democratic guest on with him for balance, and O'Reilly also never discloses that Rove is a dishonest partisan hack who founded Crossroads GPS, that raises hundreds of millions of dollars to run dishonest political ads against Democrats.

No disclosure of any of that, nothing. O'Reilly puts Rove on as if he is an Independent political analyst who is honest and has an objective opinion. This is about as dishonest as a journalist can be, by not disclosing who and what Rove is every time he is on. And yet he calls for full disclosure from everyone else in the media.

O'Reilly also complains about all the money wealthy people like George Soros give to Democrats, but he never says anything about the hundreds of millions wealthy people on the right give to Rove and Crossroads GPS. Here are some facts about Crossroads GPS, that Bill O'Reilly never discloses, or talks about.

Crossroads GPS is a conservative/Republican advocacy group that is among the biggest outside player in influencing national and state elections. Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove, who served as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, were instrumental in helping to launch American Crossroads in 2010.

American Crossroads is a so-called "super PAC," allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts provided all donations and expenditures are reported publicly. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4), was formed, according to Carl Forti, political director for American Crossroads, because some donors didn't want to be disclosed and were more comfortable giving to an entity that keeps donors names secret.

Crossroads GPS steadfastly refuses to disclose any information about who gives to it. The money raised from secret donors can be quite substantial. ProPublica's analysis of the group's tax returns found 50 anonymous contributions of more than $1 million, including one of $22.5 million.

The chairman of American Crossroads is Mike Duncan, a former Republican National Committee chairman. Its president and chief executive officer is Steven Law, a former deputy secretary of labor in the administration of George W. Bush. Law also served as general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Draft tax returns revealed that the group raised more than $325 million during the 2012 election cycle -- $9 million more than the Democratic National Committee. They reported to the Federal Election Commission that a combined $176 million of that was spent on advertising and election communications. In addition, they spent undisclosed amounts on voter turnout efforts and other activities.

That $176 million total was over $30 million more than the next-biggest outside spending group -- Restore Our Future, a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC -- and over $100 million more than the highest-spending left-leaning group, Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action.

And O'Reilly never discloses any of that information, while having Rove on the Factor as a regular weekly guest, while complaining about the money Democrats raise, and billing Rove as an objective political analyst.

In addition to the presidential election, the Crossroads groups got involved in dozens of congressional races. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, much of their spending -- $159 million -- was directed at attacking Democratic candidates.

Most of the time these attacks were full of lies, and many of their ads had to be pulled because of lies. In Nevada, Crossroads GPS spent $768,000 on a television ad that stretched the truth regarding allegations of ethical misconduct raised against Democratic Senate hopeful Shelley Berkley. And Berkley would go on to lose the election.

In Florida, American Crossroads spent $1.8 million attacking Sen. Bill Nelson for "casting the deciding vote for Obamacare." The ad also made some dishonest claims, which were refuted in "Scary Medicare Claims," warning of death panels and Medicare rationing due to the Affordable Care Act. Despite the heavy spending, Nelson would coast to victory in his bid for reelection.

American Crossroads was able to rely on a relatively small number of large donors in the election season. In all, 17 percent of its contributions came from Texas billionaire Harold Simmons and the Contran Corporation, a massive holding company he controlled. Simmons continued to lead the way for the 2014 cycle with a $1 million contribution by Contran, which ranks as the third highest contributor.

Despite the huge sums of money raised and spent by the Crossroads groups, their track record in the 2012 elections was not very good. A study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just 14 percent of the total spent by Crossroads GPS on advertising and election communications went to support candidates who went on to win, or to oppose candidates who lost.

Which just shows that no matter how much money you spend, if the people oppose your policies and your candidates you are still going to lose.

Crossroads GPS, the 501(c)(4), has spent more than $4 million opposing Colorado Sen. Mark Udall and more than $1 million each to help Republican challengers in the Arkansas, Alaska, and North Carolina Senate races.

O'Reilly never reports on this, never tells anyone about Rove being part of it, and never complains about the money they raise. But if George Soros donates a dime to a Democrat running for office, O'Reilly spends a month crying about it. Which is just more proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge who may be the biggest hypocrite in the world.

State Of Emergency Declared In Maryland: National Guard Activated
By: Steve - April 28, 2015 - 10:00am

Baltimore, MD -- CBS Baltimore reports that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has declared a state of emergency and placed the National Guard on alert in response to the violence and turmoil in Baltimore:

The city of Baltimore announced a curfew for all residents as a turbulent day that began with the funeral of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, the nation's latest symbol of police brutality, ended with rioting by rock-throwing youths, widespread looting and at least 15 police officers injured.

"Today's looting and acts of violence in Baltimore will not be tolerated," Hogan said in a statement.

"In response, I have put the Maryland National Guard on alert so they can be in position to deploy rapidly as needed. I strongly condemn the actions of the offenders who are engaged in direct attacks against innocent civilians, businesses and law enforcement officers. There is a significant difference between protesting and violence and those committing these acts will be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law."

By evening, the unrest was spreading, and the police said at least 27 people had been arrested. At a news conference on Monday night, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced that a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew would be imposed for a week beginning on Tuesday.

"Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs," she said. The city already has a curfew for juveniles.

Republicans Now Trying To Save Obamacare For Political Reasons
By: Steve - April 27, 2015 - 11:00am

It's no secret that Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends have opposed the Affordable Care Act since the very beginning. From death panels to economic Armageddon, the GOP has said and done just about anything they possibly could to make people as irrationally terrified of this law as possible.

But despite their incessant fear-mongering, basically none of their apocalyptic warnings have come true. The worst factual talking point they've had against Obamacare is that around 5 million Americans were forced to switch insurance plans because their previous plans were inadequate.

So, when I read that Senate Republicans were desperately trying to pass legislation that would extend the subsidies for the Affordable Care Act through 2017, I was caught a little off guard. After all, these are the same subsidies they have been pushing the Supreme Court to strike down for years?

So, why would Republicans want to pass legislation that guarantees the subsidies through 2017? Simple, to avoid having millions of Americans blaming the Republican party for losing their health insurance just before the 2016 elections.

Right now the debate in the Supreme Court over these subsidies essentially centers around wording in the law that could easily be fixed by Congress, nullifying any need for the court to rule on this issue at all. Of course, Republicans in Congress won't do that.

Instead, what they're trying to do is pass a temporary patch to the law so that if the court rules against it they won't be blamed for the ramifications (basically complete chaos within our health care system) just before one of the most crucial election years in our nation's history.

While it's easy for Republicans to brainwash their voters into thinking that this law is horrible, it will be an entirely different story when millions of Americans suddenly see what they are going to lose if the GOP gets its way.

If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies, there's not going to be anyone else to blame but the Republican party -- and they know that. That's why they're trying to pass this temporary fix so that they won't have to suffer any sort of political ramifications for being the ones responsible for millions of Americans potentially losing their health insurance.

It really is astonishing how stupid Republicans treat conservative voters -- yet their voters seem to eat it right up. Republicans couldn't be any more transparent about what they're trying to do, but conservative voters couldn't seem to care less.

Clearly Republicans know the law is working and they also know millions of Americans are going to finally see just how valuable Obamacare has been if the GOP finally gets its way.

If they didn't fear that, and they truly believed this law was one of the worst things to ever happen to this country, Senate Republicans wouldn't be trying to pass an extension to the very subsidies they want struck down just to save their political asses in the 2016 elections.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Slams Media For Making Climate Change Deniers Seem Credible
By: Steve - April 27, 2015 - 10:00am

One of the biggest mistakes we make when discussing climate change is calling it a "debate," because there is no debate - it's real and human activity on the planet is the leading cause of it. When the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists -- roughly 99 percent -- all agree that human activity is causing climate change, the opinions of those who choose to deny that evidence really don't matter.

Unfortunately, the main reasons why there are so many people who deny that humans are causing climate change are: The issue has become political, meaning that many people shut off their brains and simply regurgitate talking points based on whatever their political party is telling them to believe, regardless of facts or Religion.

In this country, the Republican party is heavily backed by big oil and other various energy companies. It's an industry that stands to lose untold billions if humans were to ever embrace green energy, moving away from fossil fuels. Naturally, this has sparked a huge push by many within these industries to spend billions on fake information hoping to build doubt on scientific data pertaining to climate change much in the same way big tobacco did decades ago over the health risks of smoking.

Religion is another issue that many use as a reason to deny climate change. I've met quite a few people who deny climate change is real because they believe God controls the weather. There's really no reasoning with these people or changing their minds -- no matter what sort of factual evidence you provide, they're going to believe what they believe.

So the well known astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had some rather choice words for the media concerning why he thinks there are so many who doubt the very real existence of climate change. "There's this journalistic ethos saying if I get one opinion then I need to get another opinion that countervails that," Tyson said. "So if I say the world is round, are you obligated to say the world is flat, lest someone think you are being biased in your reporting? Well, that's absurd."

"If you allocated column inches in proportion to the scientific consensus of experiments, there would be one sentence talking about people who deny climate change and the rest of the ten columns talking about research that supports it," he said. "But that's not what we see in the public."

And he's absolutely right. Anytime you see climate change "debated," it's almost always an equal number of people on both sides debating the issue. This, of course, projects the idea that both sides are equally represented.

They're not. To accurately “debate” this issue based on the actual representation of scientists who believe in climate change vs. those who don't, we would need to gather 100 scientists together, with 97-99 supporting human-caused climate change and 1-3 scientists on the other side arguing against it.

And I can promise you, if that's how these "debates" were being framed, those denying climate change would come off like quacks (as they should) as opposed to seeming like people with legitimate opinions, which is how they're often presented by our media.

Thankfully we have people like Tyson and Bill Nye using their fame to help raise awareness of this very real problem, because if we don't do something to try to reverse the damage we're doing to our planet soon, it's gong to be too late.

Right-Wing Ted Cruz Skipped Lynch Confirmation Vote For A Fundraiser
By: Steve - April 26, 2015 - 11:00am

After railing against it, Republican presidential candidate hopeful and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) missed the Loretta Lynch confirmation vote on Thursday because he had to fl back to Texas for a Dallas fundraiser for himself, hosted by investor Tom Hicks.

Cruz likes to talk a big game, blaming his fellow Republicans for things that he himself can't even be bothered to show up for. The Republican Senator from Texas said, "The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination. But the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed."

Then he apparently put on a big swagger about how Republicans would have to explain their vote back home, a problem Cruz rarely has since he never shows up to do his job and vote.

From The Hill:
Cruz also suggested that Republicans who supported Lynch would have to explain their votes back in their home states.

"I would note there are a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority," he said. "That's a question each of us will have to answer to our constituents back home."
And btw folks, when Democrats who are in Congress run for President O'Reilly makes a big deal about all the votes they miss while on the campaign tour, but when Republicans like Ted Cruz do the exact same thing, O'Reilly never says a word. To this day, O'Reilly has not said one word about Cruz missing all those votes, even after Cruz said other Republicans would have to explain their votes to the folks back home.

Senator Cruz ranks 97th in the first three months of 2015 in showing up for votes. He has also missed the majority of committee hearings.

And it gets worse:
According to a report from Politico late last month, Cruz missed out on discussions about Afghanistan, the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, spending cuts, military readiness and the appropriate level of compensation for the troops.

Cruz was also the only senator absent on Wednesday when the Senate voted 99-0 to pass a compromise human trafficking bill that ended a contentious fight over federal abortion funding restrictions that had stalled the confirmation vote on attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch.
Which is so Ted Cruz, he puts on a great show, condemning his fellow Republicans and slamming Democrats. But in reality, he is not doing much except enriching Ted Cruz. Just like he did when he shut down the government and left the taxpayers with the bill for it.

The good thing for Cruz is he almost never votes on anything, so he does not have an actual record.

It's all about his inflammatory rhetoric. He can say whatever he wants, he doesn't need to worry about backing it up with action let alone reality, because he is never dealing with the consequences of what he says.

This is done on purpose, so the person running against Cruz can not use his voting record in the Senate against him. If you do not vote on anything you have no record to attack, it's a political strategy to cover for a far-right extreme and unqualified presidential candidate.

O'Reilly Once Called It Nutty For A SC Justice To Recuse Himself
By: Steve - April 26, 2015 - 10:00am

But only when that Supreme Court Justice is a conservative. In 2006 O'Reilly Didn't Care That Justice Scalia Gave A Speech On A Pending Case That Made His Vote "Obvious"

Bill O'Reilly has called on Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the upcoming marriage equality cases -- even though neither justice has confirmed how they will rule.

But in 2006, the conservative O'Reilly took the opposite position when it came to Justice Antonin Scalia, despite the fact that O'Reilly admitted a speech the conservative justice gave on a pending case made it "obvious" how he would vote.

On the April 21st edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly complained that, because Justices Ginsburg and Kagan had officiated four same-sex marriages, "these ladies have to recuse themselves."

Even though neither justice has spoken specifically on the merits of the same-sex marriage cases -- a situation that could trigger a need for a recusal -- O'Reilly nevertheless claimed that they were "not impartial" due to their participation in same-sex wedding ceremonies, and that their refusal to step down "is what unlimited power looks like."

The following night O'Reilly doubled down at the end of his show, and described the logic of a viewer who agreed with him as "impeccable," declaring the liberal justices' acts a "blatant conflict of interest."

But O'Reilly felt quite differently about the standards of recusal in 2006, when he claimed that only the "nutty left" wanted Scalia to recuse himself in Hamdan v. Rumseld, a case brought by a Guantanamo Bay prisoner who argued that his detention after 9/11 violated his rights under military and international law.

On March 8, 2006, just weeks before the Court heard oral arguments in Hamdan, Scalia gave a speech at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, where he asserted that people who had been designated as enemy combatants -- like the prisoner in the Hamdan case -- could not enforce their rights in federal court.

Scalia stated that "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts ... Give me a break."

In response to an audience member who asked whether detainees had rights under the Geneva Convention -- one of the exact issues raised in Hamdan -- Scalia replied, "I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."

As Michael Isikoff from Newsweek explained, "the comments provoked 'quite an uproar'" because the case hadn't been heard yet, but Scalia had "already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter."

Quoting Stephen Gillers, a professor of law and legal ethics expert, Isikoff added: "As these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court."

But on the March 28, 2006, edition of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly pushed back on the "legitimate question" of recusal, even though he admitted the comments indicated "Scalia's not going to vote for civilian trials for terrorists":
O'REILLY: Finally, chief justice -- not chief justice but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made some comments about how captured terrorists should be treated by the USA. Now, the Supreme Court is going to hear -- going to hear a case where the crazy left wants all of the captured terrorists to be tried in civilian court, no matter where they're caught.

This is insane. But that's what the far left wants. Now, Scalia was in Switzerland and said this.

SCALIA: We are in a war here capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in war. We captured a lot of Germans during World War II, and they were brought not to Guantánamo, but to the soil of the United States. We didn't give them a trial.

O'REILLY: All right, so obviously, Scalia's not going to vote for civilian trials for terrorists, and I don't think most of the other Supreme Court people will either. But now, the nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself from the vote. You know, it's just the same -- on and on and on and on. But these nuts -- aye-aye-aye.
Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack with two different standards, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

O'Reilly Spins Out Propaganda Demanding Ginsburg & Kagan Recusal
By: Steve - April 25, 2015 - 11:00am

In the lead up to next week's landmark Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of marriage equality, Fox News Bill O'Reilly is amplifying a fringe -- and absurd -- right-wing campaign calling on Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elana Kagan to recuse themselves because they have officiated same-sex marriages.

Even though these actions, along with Ginsburg's comments noting the American public is rapidly turning against anti-LGBT discrimination, are not grounds for legitimate recusal.

In January, the American Family Association (AFA) -- a notorious right-wing anti-gay hate group -- announced a campaign titled, "Kagan and Ginsburg: Recuse Yourselves!"

In a statement, the AFA, best known for its infamous anti-gay spokesman Bryan Fischer, called on the justices to recuse themselves ahead of next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage.

The group argued that Kagan and Ginsburg "should recuse themselves from making any same-sex marriage decisions because they have both conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies."

On April 20th, Fox News legal correspondent Shannon Bream twice reported on "public calls, petition drives, and appeals directly to Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves from hearing next week's case on same-sex marriage."

During Fox News Special Report, Bream pointed to the justices past history officiating same-sex weddings and a February 2015 interview during which Ginsburg said that it "would not take a large adjustment" for Americans to get used to nationwide marriage equality.

On April 21st, Bill O'Reilly picked up the argument in his "Is It Legal" segment on The O'Reilly Factor, declaring "these ladies have to recuse themselves," because "the Supreme Court is supposed to be an incorruptible institution, but reports say Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has herself performed three gay marriages, and Justice Elena Kagan, one."

O'Reilly's ridiculous recusal standard, if taken seriously, would lead to absurd results.

Even conservatives have noted, when defending Justice Antonin Scalia's frequent diatribes and associations on contentious social and policy issues, that the principles of recusal should not extend beyond the details and merits of the specific case at hand.

Otherwise, judges would be prohibited from involving themselves with all sorts of topics in American society. Although O'Reilly and his guest, Fox News legal analyst Kimberley Guilfoyle, had no problem questioning the "impartiality" of Ginsburg and Kagan because they were "going out of their way to perform same-sex marriages," they did NOT do the same for the conservative justices who decline to do so.

In other words, O'Reilly and the right should also ask the conservative judges who refuse to perform same-sex marriages to recuse themselves, but they do not. They only want the more liberal judges to recuse themselves because they support same-sex marriage.

Nor did O'Reilly or Guilfoyle mention Scalia's partiality on marriage equality, even though he has frequently reaffirmed his antipathy toward civil rights protections for LGBT people. In a 2013 interview with New York magazine, Scalia commented, "maybe the world is spinning toward a wider acceptance of homosexual rights."

When asked about his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he wrote that Americans had the right to "protect themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive," Scalia said this:
I would write that again. But that's not saying that I personally think it's destructive. Americans have a right to feel that way. They have a democratic right to do that, and if it is to change, it should change democratically, and not at the ukase of a Supreme Court.
Bream's earlier report on the "growing calls" for Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves is also ridiculous, because it's only the far-right who are asking for them to recuse themselves.

Bream turned to right-wing National Review Online contributor Ed Whelan, an anti-gay marriage crusader, to hype the campaign to remove Kagan and Ginsburg ahead of next week's hearings.

But Bream failed to report that the campaign is led by the AFA and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), two far-right fringe anti-gay hate groups whose baseless campaign has gone largely ignored by mainstream media outlets.

In fact, a Nexis search found no mainstream media mentions of the campaign since February of this year. Nevertheless, O'Reilly and Fox News has promoted the biased right-wing campaign against Ginsburg and Kagan, claiming that Ginsburg's comments on same-sex marriage were "drawing the most heat."

Polls Show Hillary Still Crushing Every Possible Republican Candidate
By: Steve - April 25, 2015 - 10:00am

Despite the fact that O'Reilly, Fox News, and the right-wing in America have already been dishonestly attacking Hillary Clinton for weeks, the polls show she would still crush any Republican loon that would run against her. And of course, O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because he is too busy slamming her.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- If the presidential election were held today, it wouldn't even be close.

Hillary Clinton is crushing her potential Republican rivals by double digits in a new CNN/ORC International poll. The Republicans best showing is by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who trails the former senator and secretary of state by 14 points.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who hasn't even declared his candidacy yet, is behind Clinton by 17 points. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are each 19 points behind Clinton.

Rubio and Paul have declared their candidacies, but Christie hasn't said he'll run.

Clinton is also the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination, with nearly seven in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting her.

Even including the poll's margin of error, Clinton would still have a double-digit lead on Rubio and the others. The poll was taken April 16-19 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. It was released Monday.

This is bad news for O'Reilly and the right-wing smear machine, because it shows the American people do not believe their biased propaganda. And it shows that they have little to no power with anyone except the right-wing stooges that listen to them and agree with them.

Obama Approval Ratings Are Up: O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - April 24, 2015 - 11:00am

When the Obama approval ratings were going down O'Reilly reported it every time they dropped by even 1 point, but now that they are going back up he never says a word about it, proving once again he is nothing but a biased right-wing hack who hates President Obama.

Thanks to a growing economy President Obama's approval rating has reached its highest level since May of 2013. Obama is now more popular than George W. Bush, and as popular as Ronald Reagan was at the same point in their second terms.

According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, the Obama resurgence is being fueled by the growing economy. Fifty-two percent of respondents called the U.S. economy very or somewhat good while 48% said the economy was very or somewhat poor.

The President's approval rating has increased with 18-29-year-olds (57%), women (51%), Democrats (88%), and liberal Democrats (97%).

The news gets even better for Obama when his approval rating is stacked up against the previous three two-term presidents. With the exception of Bill Clinton, President Obama is faring better than or equal to the most recent two-term presidents.

Here is the approval rating for the last four two-term presidents in April of their seventh year in office:

Obama now: 48%
Bush - April 2007: 36%
Clinton - April 1999: 60%
Reagan - April 1987: 48%

Obama has the same approval rating as the right-wing hero Ronald Reagan at the same time of his second term. And yet, O'Reilly never says a word about it, while at the same time claiming Obama is not doing a good job and that he is hated by a lot of people.

At this point in his presidency, Bill Clinton held a 60% approval rating following his impeachment trial over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, largely buoyed by a strong economy. George W. Bush posted a 36% approval rating in April 2007, buffeted by the war in Iraq despite mostly positive reviews of the economy.

And the spring of Ronald Reagan's seventh year in office saw him earning a 48% approval rating from the public, a rating that was just beginning to recover from the Iran-Contra affair and didn't get any boost from a tepid economic climate.

Many supporters of the President will view his increasing approval numbers as Obama finally getting credit for the economic turnaround after pulling the country back from the brink of a potential depression when he took office, but these numbers could foreshadow a Democratic strong point in 2016.

If the economy keeps growing, which it looks like it will, Democrats will be able to run on maintaining and expanding the Obama economy.

And even with that information O'Reilly and his republican friends are arguing that a Clinton win would equal an Obama third term, but what if the American people like where the nation is heading under Obama?

The Republican attack could backfire and actually make the case for electing Hillary Clinton. President Obama has held Democrats together, and he is on the upswing.

His critics tried their best to destroy him, especially O'Reilly and Fox News, but President Obama is not only surviving, but he is also increasing his approval rating with the American people.

How Legal to Discriminate Became Freedom and Liberty
By: Steve - April 24, 2015 - 10:00am

Enough press attention has been given to the "religious freedom" laws in Indiana and Arkansas that there was initially little incentive to write more about it. That is, until conservatives reacted to opposition to the laws with an excess that is astonishing even for Fox News.

The wing-nuts have come loose, to the extent that the entire coordinated media effort to attack liberals has taken on the distinct odor of desperation. But even that is not the real story. Before we reveal the plot, let's put this issue in context.

As expected, and right on cue, Bill O'Reilly entered to pound his chest against the war on Christians, an extension of his false war on Christmas. Here is O'Reilly's thought when contemplating that not everybody would support the Indiana law: "In the U.S. and in Western Europe you have a civil war between the secular progressives and traditional religious people. In both cases, Christians are targets."

What reverberates in our heads is the obvious disconnect between reality and this tired conservative storyline. A bully calling his victim a bully is hard to digest.

According to a survey from Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, more than 78 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Others more recently put that figure at 83 percent. Only 4 percent are self-proclaimed non-believers. And only about 3 percent of the population is in the LGBT community.

O'Reilly has plenty of fellow passengers on this derailing train of delusion. Tucker Carlson radio guest Tammy Bruce said liberals have turned into bullies and that conservatives have the obligation to "stop that kind of behavior." Tammy went on to note that critics of the Indiana law were "a fascist wolf pack."

Tom Cotton (R-AK) said gays should be thankful they are not being hanged, as they are in Iran. Mark Levin, a conservative radio host, draws a broader sweep of conclusions about any opposition to the Indian law: "The people who oppose these laws hate liberty; they hate the Constitution," he said on his show earlier this week. "I'll go even further: they hate America."

Mike Huckabee believes that opposition to the laws means that liberals won't stop "until there are no more churches, until there are no more people who are spreading the Gospel, and I'm talking now about the unabridged, unapologetic Gospel that is really God's truth."

So in spite of vast overwhelming supermajorities, the conservative Christians that dominate our airwaves continue to speak in the dialect of victimhood. For the rest of us, the idea of Christians as modern victims while enjoying a dominating, crushing majority is difficult to swallow.

A Christian complaining that Christianity is under attack when we are all submerged in that religion's presence is like a fish in the Pacific Ocean complaining that there is not enough water to swim in.

From the perspective of a single-digit minority, any claim by a group representing 80 percent of the population that the views of a few are a threat to the many is simply surreal. Nobody would take seriously a big brute of a bully who beat the daylights out of an innocent bystander, and then claimed he was victimized because he scraped his knuckles on his victim's forehead.

Yet that is what we are witnessing with O'Reilly and Fox News complaining about their sore knuckles.

Still, as radical as these views are, none is surprising. We have come to expect nothing less from Fox News or from the excesses of blind religious zeal wrapped in the flag of a false patriotism. This is all just colorful background for the real story.

What is shocking about the Indiana law is not that religious zealots will trample our constitution in the name of their god; the real story is the complete acquiescence of the mainstream press to the Orwellian twisting of our language to suit the conservative agenda.

I have not come across a single instance in which a major newspaper or TV reporter has challenged the term "religious freedom" and called the statute for what it is: the "Legal to Discriminate" law or "Christians Only" law or "Jews Need Not Enter" law or the "We Hate Gays" law.

Do you think the law would have as much support if we used the proper moniker? Language matters. As George Carlin noted, in one of his many famous rifts on the oddities of word usage, you can say "prick your finger" in polite company but not "finger your prick."

How we characterize something impacts how we react; and yet here we are all blindly talking about "religious freedom" or equally egregious "religious liberty" when what we actually face is the loss of one of our most basic rights. The contrast between the words and the reality could not be starker, and with few exceptions I hear little from mainstream media challenging the description.

We have come to a sad state when "religious liberty" means the precise opposite, such that such "liberty" denies me the right to practice my religion without fear of discrimination or denial of services readily available to my neighbor. Let's be clear: while gays were the initial target of these pro-discrimination laws, nothing would stop a shop-owner from denying service to anybody offensive to his or her religious ideal.

We talk of "freedom" and "liberty" and how Christians are bullied and victims. We should instead be calling these laws exactly what they are: an attempt by a supermajority to crush anybody and anything that does not comply with their narrow set of intolerant beliefs.

The right to discriminate is an ugly pig, no matter how much lipstick we put on it. Let's at least get it right when we talk about it. And no matter how much O'Reilly spins it, the type of law Indiana passed is nothing more than a law to let people use religion to refuse service to gays without being prosecuted for discrimination.

Legal Expert Claims Planting Weapons On Victims Was Standard Procedure
By: Steve - April 23, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, the Fox legal analyst was never a guest on his show to discuss it, and O'Reilly totally ignored what he said.

' Following the shooting of Walter Scott, a 50-year-old unarmed black man who was running away from the scene of a traffic stop, by Michael Slager, a 33-year-old white police officer in North Charleston, South Carolina, the video a bystander recorded of the shooting challenges Slager's initial report, and raises the question of how often weapons are planted on victims.

Arthur Aidala, a legal analyst for Fox News, addressed the topic on Fox & Friends on Wednesday, and pointed out the fact that the video taken by a bystander, Feidin Santana, appears to show Slager running back to the initial scene of the altercation, picking up his Taser, and then running back to Scott, and dropping the Taser next to Scott's body.

Aidala went on to say that in his experience, planting a weapon on a victim was standard procedure for police officers in the 1980s and 90s.
"When I was in the DA's office in the 80s and 90s, that was standard operating procedures," Aidala said. "Police officers -- I hate to say this -- would keep a second gun that nobody knew about on their ankle, so if they ever killed someone they shouldn't have they would take that gun out and leave it."
Feidin Santana, a 23-year-old barber who immigrated to the US from the Dominican Republic, was the one who used his phone to record the shooting. In an interview with NBC News, Santana said that he turned in the video, because he thought the Scott family would like to know the truth.

As previously reported, Michael Slager has been charged with murdering Walter Scott, after firing eight shots at him as he ran away. There was a traffic stop prior to the shooting, where Slager pulled Scott over for a broken taillight. There was also a warrant out for Scott's arrest because he owed child support payments.

Aidala said that in terms of Slager's sentencing, there would be "no sympathy for this police officer" other than the fact that he is a "33-year-old human being who is getting paid $40,000 to protect his own life and protect everyone else's life."

"Nobody thinks this cop woke up that morning and said let me go kill somebody. He made split second decisions and they were wrong. Obviously he made wrong decisions," Aidala said. "It's going to be about, in my opinion, how much jail time does he serve."

Hotel Industry Spins Wage Hikes While CEOs Make Millions
By: Steve - April 23, 2015 - 10:00am

Hotels are making a killing. Occupancy rates are exceeding pre-recession highs, and are expected to reach record levels in 2016. Profits per room are up over 11 percent this April compared to April 2014 and the average daily rate for a room is almost 13 percent higher than it was a year ago. And executive salaries have skyrocketed.

But the little-known trade association representing this robust $163 billion dollar industry is a major force fighting behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and in statehouses and courtrooms across the country to keep workers wages low.

On April 15, the same day that hundreds of thousands of working people in over 200 cities are expected to participate in the largest-ever mobilization of underpaid workers, the American Hotel & Lodging Association will join forces with the National Restaurant Association to ask Congress to block a federal minimum wage increase, shrink the number of workers eligible for employer-provided health care insurance, and challenge the National Labor Relations Board ruling protecting the rights of franchise workers.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association is the trade group for companies in the hotel industry, including chains, independent hotels, hotel management companies and industry suppliers. AHLA's board includes members from major hotel and resort companies, including Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, Omni, and others.

The well-compensated heads of those hotels include:

-- CEO Christopher Nassetta, Hilton Worldwide, made $9.9 million in 2014
-- CEO Arne Sorenson, Marriott Hotels, made $14.9 million last year
-- CEO Mark Hoplamazian, Hyatt Hotels, made $6.3 million last year.

Omni Hotel CEO Robert Rowling is one of the richest people in the world, with a net worth of $5.8 billion. Rowling has given huge contributions to Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the Koch Brother's Freedom Partners, which contribute to Republican politicians across the nation to block higher wages, paid sick days and union representation.

And some of Rowling's money works behind the scenes to keep wages in the hotel industry low through the American Hotel & Lodging Association.

Despite claiming that most industry workers are already paid above minimum wage, AHLA strongly opposes efforts to raise it. The term "extreme wages" first appeared in January 2014 when AHLA announced it would "beat back the growing emergence of extreme minimum and living wage initiatives."

In a September 2014 op-ed, AHLA CEO Katherine Lugar warned of "local extreme wage battles in cities such as Seattle, Chicago and Los Angeles." And she referenced "extreme wage initiatives" no less than five times in a November 2014 Lodging Magazine interview.

Now in Los Angeles, where more than 40 percent of the city's hotel workers currently earn below the federal poverty line, AHLA has sued to block an ordinance raising minimum wages for hotel employees to $15.37 an hour. In other parts of the country, as CMD has detailed, the goal is to pass laws at the state level to preempt local ordinances to raise the wages.

The lawsuit and the wage preemption bills are part of a coordinated legislative, legal and PR strategy detailed by an AHLA lobbyist at a recent conference.

At the 2014 joint meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its local offshoot, American City County Exchange (ACCE), AHLA Senior Executive Brian Crawford compared the industry's battle against local wage laws to a game of Whack-a-Mole: "We're trying to beat them down when they pop up."

The AHLA is a major mover behind the "Coalition to Save Local Businesses," which is encouraging lawmakers on the Hill to challenge the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's determination that McDonald's is a joint employer of franchise employees.

The joint employer standard has thrown the big fast food and hotel franchisors and their trade associations into a panic, as it calls into question the business model that has allowed franchisors to get rich while offloading responsibility for low wages and poor working conditions onto local franchisees.

As with its lobbying partner, the National Restaurant Association which champions the $2.13 tipped wage, the AHLA seeks to preserve an industry wage structure that leaves many workers living in poverty while company executives and owners reap millions.

The sale of Hilton last year earned its private equity owners $10 billion on a business they owned for six years!

They are making millions and millions in profits, and in some cases billions, and they still do not want to pay a living wage to the people who make them all that money. It's pure greed, and they even lie to try and keep making all that money without fairly paying their employees who make them all that money.

Missouri National Guard Called Civilian Protesters Enemy Forces
By: Steve - April 22, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never once reported or mentioned this story on his so-called no spin news show.

Adding to the backlash from the bloody crackdown on public protests in Ferguson, Missouri last year, leaked international Missouri National Guard documents reveal that the Guard was officially referring to demonstrators as "enemy forces" in mission briefings.

Missouri Army Chief of Staff Col. David Boyle realized pretty early on how bad that looked and in a November 18 email urged officials to reduce the "public militarization perception" and avoid potentially inflammatory language.

But the National Guard is defending the label, with Captain John Quinn insisting it was "standard language in general military planning."

Capt. Quinn went on to insist that the National Guard would also consider inclement weather and heat potential threats.

Which is just ridiculous, and if you buy that garbage I have some land to sell you.

It also underscores just what a blunder it was to use the term "enemy forces," despite Capt. Quinn's protestation, presumably state National Guards do not, as a general rule, refer to tornadoes or thunderstorms as "enemy forces."

The decision to label civilian protesters as "enemy forces" is deliberately provocative, and part of a policy throughout the Ferguson debacle of treating civil unrest and unfriendly media coverage as problems to be solved through military force.

And one last thing, I very much doubt the founding fathers would have supported calling American citizens who were protesting, enemy forces, when they gave them the right to protest in the fricking constitution. It's called the 1st amendment.

O'Reilly Caught Using Propaganda From A Right-Wing Group
By: Steve - April 22, 2015 - 10:00am

Lie #402: On Monday night O'Reilly was caught lying about the number of tax increases Obama has proposed, and he based his lies on a report from the far-right Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist. Not to mention, he never once reported that Obama has lowered taxes on most of the people, and that the tax increases he has proposed would only be on the wealthy.

This is more proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased lying right-wing hack, who will never be fair to Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat. These are talking points from fricking Grover Norquist, the biggest right-wing liar on earth, and O'Reilly spewed them out for all to hear, like the good little dishonest Republican he is.

Monday night Bill O'Reilly parroted a previously debunked claim that President Obama raised taxes more than 442 times since taking office -- a claim rated "Mostly False" by PolitiFact in 2014.

During the April 20th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly pointed to federal tax revenue to dismiss political rhetoric on income inequality, lamenting the tax rates of "Americans earning more than $400,000" and noting that "the U.S. has the highest tax rate on business in the world."

O'Reilly complained that President Obama has imposed "punishing taxation," claiming that "since taking office, President Obama has proposed a whopping 442 tax increases" and asking, "how much more can the government take from the affluent without crashing the entire free market economy?"

Which is just laughable, because corporations are making record profits, jobs are up, and the stock market is at a record high over 18,000. So what O'Reilly said in not just a lie, the free market is thriving under Obama and businesses are doing great. And btw folks, O'Reilly still ignores the fact that after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy the economy boomed and created 22 million new jobs in the next 7 years.

Proving that when you raise taxes on the wealthy it does not hurt the economy or the free market, and it even helps it. O'Reilly is just a flat out liar about all of this.

O'Reilly's claim that Obama tried to raise taxes 442 times comes from Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist, and was rated as "Mostly False" by PolitiFact in 2014.

According to PolitiFact, Americans for Tax Reform "overstated the total number by a significant amount," noting that "removing duplicates eliminates about 159 of the proposals" and "failed to account for other tax cuts that are part of Obama's record, including nearly $220 billion in tax cuts that were part of the federal stimulus."

Bill O'Reilly is a liar, about Obama and about the effects of tax increases on the wealthy. And that is a fact.

Another Reason Why O'Reilly Is An Idiot About Fighting Terrorism
By: Steve - April 21, 2015 - 10:00am

After floating the idea of creating a giant mercenary army to fight terrorists around the world on Tuesday, Bill O'Reilly had the founder of Blackwater on his show to rubber stamp the grandiose plan. Even though almost every military and political expert in the world thought it was an insane idea, and most Republicans even said it was a bad idea, O'Reilly held his ground and talked to Erik Prince about it.

"It's possible and doable," said Erik Prince, former CEO of the notorious private security firm Blackwater USA.

He went on to address some possible objections: "There's three arguments against this, there's reliability, accountability and cost."

But O'Reilly quickly waved off concern over the cost of raising a 25,000 man army, saying countries like Saudi Arabia would "kick in" to fund the force.

As for accountability, O'Reilly quickly noted that four Blackwater contractors currently face charges for killing at least 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007, but that overall, a paramilitary force would be trustworthy.

"You know, in war, bad things happen inevitably, but there is control, there's a central control over such a force," O'Reilly said.

Prince, who sold the company in 2010 after stepping down as CEO in 2009, went on to compare O'Reilly's giant mobile mercenary unit to the French nobility assisting America in the Revolutionary War.

"It's as part of American history as apple pie," he said, citing the involvement of the Marquis de Lafayette and Rochambeau during the Revolution.

Other than being an insane idea, it's all a fairy tale that will never happen. How does O'Reilly know that every one in a paid mercenary army would be trustworthy, when they are doing it for the money. What if someone from the other side offers them more money, they could switch sides and take the money.

And how does he know Saudi Arabia would fund the force, he does not know, it's all guessing and speculation, something he says he never does. It all sounds like a plan from a crazy person in a mental home.

And here is a small example of why it would be a terrible idea.

US Court Sentences Blackwater Guards Over 2007 Baghdad Massacre

4-15-15 -- Following up on the October convictions of four Blackwater employees for their roles in the 2007 Nisour Square Massacre in Baghdad, a US court today sentenced all four to substantial prison terms.

Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard each faced multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter, and were each sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The heaviest charges fell on Nicholas Slatten, however.

Slatten, who bragged to friends of his intention to "kill as many Iraqis as he could as payback for 9/11," was charged with first-degree murder in the killings, and was sentenced to life in prison. He was also the one who fired first.

The Nisour Square Massacre left 17 Iraqi civilians dead and 20 injured and led to the revocation by the Iraqi government of Blackwater's license to operate in the nation, though they remained for quite some time under State Department auspices anyhow.

The guard were charged in a relatively rare case of using the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. The defense argued unsuccessfully that this did not apply because they were working as military contractors for the US State Department, not the military itself.

And of course, O'Reilly never reported the convictions on the Factor, no mention of it at all, no segments about it, nothing. And since his 25,000 man terrorist army idea went public he has never mentioned that again either, most likely because he figured out it was a crazy idea that nobody agreed with.

Note to GOP Donors: Your Campaign Donations Are Being Wasted
By: Steve - April 20, 2015 - 11:30am

This is campaign money that was donated to pay for elections and political ads, etc, not for Chris Christie to fly to Dallas so he can hang out with Jerry Jones. And if I were a Republican donor I would be mad as hell that my money was paying for this loser to party in Dallas using private jets.

White Power Business Owner Gets A Racism Reality Check
By: Steve - April 20, 2015 - 11:00am

This is what happens when you are a racist white power business owner, and as a white man myself I do not feel sorry for this racist jerk at all.

A business owner says he's suffering financially just because he publicly expressed his controversial views and there is now a crowdfunding page to help him out. Sound familiar?

Well, unlike in the case of Memories Pizza, New Jersey deli owner Jim Boggess didn't say he would refuse to serve certain people, he just asserted a certain controversial racial viewpoint.

The idiot put a sign in the window of his New Jersey Deli saying this: "Celebrate your white heritage in March, White History Month"

That viewpoint he talks about? That people should be free to celebrate their "white heritage" for White History Month.

Boggess owns Jimbo's Deli, and he got in trouble after a customer complained about the sign last month. Boggess refused to take it down, and both he and the man who complained got some pretty vicious responses. Boggess insisted, "I love everybody, and everybody should celebrate what they are. I shouldn't have to feel bad about being white."

He ended up taking it down, but last week he set up a GoFundMe page saying he's been suffering financially:

It was only supposed to be a white thing but people read more into it than that... I have become heavily in debt and getting shut off notices from everywhere for both business and home. I don't think I deserve this just because I wanted to be proud of being white and be able to celebrate my heritage like everyone else does.

If you read this, please leave a comment and what state your from so I can see where my support is coming from. Thank you for all the support and. I WILL stay strong and hope to find a job.

As of this posting, he's received a whopping $245.00

After quite a bit of negative backlash, Boggess eventually apologized and removed the sign. Even though he finally gave a public apology, the backlash has caused his business to go under. Basically, he lost almost all of his customers and he could not pay his bills any more.

I would say this, you have a right to be an idiot and a racist, and the people who support your Deli also have a right to go somewhere else, which is what happened. And as you can see almost nobody feels sorry for him, not even the usual right-wing fools that donate money to these racists, because he can not even raise $300.00 from his gofundme campaign.

Republicans Prove Once Again They Are Owned By The Wealthy
By: Steve - April 20, 2015 - 10:00am

House Republicans made it clear whose side they are on last week by voting to pass a $3 million tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

The final vote was 240-179 along party lines.

Speaker of the House John Boehner tried to sell his tax cut for millionaires and billionaires as a bill that helps families by righting a wrong, saying this: "Family farmers, ranchers, and small business owners work tirelessly to create jobs in our communities, put food on our tables, and (God willing) have something to pass on to their children and grandchildren. Taking away that opportunity with a massive death tax bill is simply wrong. And while the money is nothing more than a drop in the bucket to the federal government, it can prove devastating to families -- forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely."

Boehner also said this: "The Death Tax Repeal protects families and small businesses, and makes it easier for them to grow and plan for the future. We've also taken another step to bring more certainty to the tax code by extending and making permanent a provision allowing families and small businesses to deduct sales tax from their tax filings, helping them keep more of what they earn. These are common-sense bills that make the tax code simpler and fairer for hardworking families and I urge the president to reconsider his opposition to these measures."

Which is all a load of bull, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. There is no death tax, it's a tax on getting that money, just as winning the lottery has a tax on that money. The dead person is not being taxed, the living people who get the money are. So when they call it a death tax they are being dishonest, and it only involves 0.2% of the people who are filthy rich.

The White House also debunked Boehner's death tax fairy tale in their threat to veto this bill, "Repealing the estate tax exclusively benefits just the wealthiest one or two estates out of every thousand -- which would receive a tax cut averaging more than $3 million each -- because current law already exempts more than $5 million of wealth for individuals and more than $10 million of wealth for couples from the tax."

Yes, you heard that right. There is no estate tax on $5 million or less for singles, and $10 million or less for couples. Funny how Boehner, O'Reilly, or anyone on the right ever mentions that. They act like everyone with money who dies has kids that have to pay the tax, which is just wrong. Because it does not kick in until you have over $5 or $10 million in assets.

"Given these large exemptions, well over 99 percent of Americans, including virtually all small businesses and family farms, do not pay any estate tax."

H.R. 1105 would also shift a greater share of the tax burden onto working Americans at a time when the top one percent already holds more than 40 percent of the Nation's wealth and wealth disparities have risen to levels not seen since the 1930s.

Republicans have made it clear who they are standing with. The GOP isn't supporting hard working people who are falling behind a little more each day. John Boehner showed more sympathy for the plight of a few of the richest families in the country than he ever has for working class Americans.

The good news is that Senate Democrats are certain to block this bill, and if, by some off chance, the legislation would get to President Obama's desk, he has promised to veto it.

This vote demonstrated the Republican priorities in the clearest way.

John Boehner loves to claim that he works for "The People's House," and Thursday's vote demonstrated exactly who the people are that the Speaker is working for, the mega wealthy.

Senator Bernie Sanders Schools O'Reilly About Clinton & Reality
By: Steve - April 19, 2015 - 11:00am

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) rolled through all of Bill O'Reilly's attempts to split the left while knocking down his attempts to use him for right-wing propaganda purposes.

Sanders didn't bat an eye when O'Reilly began the interview by trying various techniques to get him to say something negative about Hillary Clinton. Sanders was aggressive and seized the interview from O'Reilly. He forced O'Dummy to pivot away from his usual blustering attacks and towards a friendly softer tone. Sanders even got O'Reilly to admit that he agrees with him on some issues like money in politics.

O'Reilly made a joke that Sanders has no chance to be President (if he runs) unless he makes O'Reilly his Vice President pick. Which was not funny, and nobody laughed at it.

What really stuck out was Sander's ability to shift O'Reilly and the interview anywhere he wanted it to go. It's rare that a guest on the Factor is more aggressive than the host, but the senator from Vermont was aggressive without being combative. The segment never turned into a scream fest. In fact, Sanders handled O'Reilly fairly easily by keeping the tone civil and not falling for the loaded and biased questions he was trying to lead him with.

Sanders was able to successfully take apart O'Reilly and his right-wing talking points by weeding through the bias that most of the questions were based on. Sanders took on O'Reilly and showed him what a strong liberal looks and sounds like.

O'Reilly tried to rely on his gimmick of being the voice for the folks, but it never worked when confronted with an authentic voice that actually works for ordinary Americans, as Bernie Sanders does.

The lesson for any member of the left who appears on the Factor (or any show on Fox News) is that it is important to be aggressive while not taking the questions at face value.

The political motivation for Sanders to appear on Fox News is that he is trying to rally grassroots support on all sides for his potential presidential campaign.

Sanders was not going to be used to divide the left ahead of 2016, no matter what tactics O'Reilly used. In fact, it was O'Reilly who ended up bending to the will of Sanders. He did not let O'Reilly control the interview and spin his views, he took control and made O'Reilly listen to him.

Gay GOP Group Banned From Western Conservative Summit
By: Steve - April 19, 2015 - 10:00am

The Log Cabin Republicans have found themselves in the news again after being barred from the Western Conservative Summit.

Like every other organization who wishes to have a presence at the June event in Denver, Colo., the pro-gay GOP group paid the $250 fee to apply for a sponsored table. But according to the Denver Post, the Log Cabin group later received a message from the Centennial Institute (the Colorado Christian University-affiliated sponsor of the summit) informing them that they cannot officially participate as a "partner, exhibitor, or advertiser."

Why? Because the group's "worldview and policy agenda are fundamentally at odds with what Colorado Christian University stands for, so it's just not a fit," read the Institute's note. "I'm sorry it has to be that way."

Think about that for a minute folks, these are Republican voters who vote for all the Republicans that run for office, and yet, they are not allowed to be involved in the Western Conservative Summit, simply because they are gay.

Then they tell them that members of the pro-gay group are still free to buy tickets and attend the event. "They'll take our money, but want us in the closet," responded Michael Carr, an official with the state's chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans.

"Did we notify a GOP group advocating same-sex marriage that their members are welcome as individuals but they're not eligible organizationally as an exhibit partner?" the Centennial Institute wrote on Facebook. "Yes, because CCU as sponsor of the Summit has a biblical position opposite to theirs that we're duty bound to uphold."

The 2015 Western Conservative Summit will be held June 26-28 in Denver. Main speakers include possible presidential candidates Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum.

And O'Reilly does not say a word about any of this, while slamming Democrats who complain about religious laws that let corporations discriminate against gay people. While at the very same time Republicans are using religion to ban gays from their own political meetings.

It's total hypocrisy and a double standard, but O'Reilly stays silent because he agrees with them. In O'Reillyworld it's ok for Republicans to pass laws that make it legal to discriminate against gays, but when Democrats complain he slams them, as he says nothing about the Republicans banning their own voters from a political meeting simply because they are gay.

Republicans Are Almost The Same As Muslims
By: Steve - April 18, 2015 - 11:30am

Note To Tea Party Idiots: This Is What You Got For Voting Republican
By: Steve - April 18, 2015 - 11:00am

I can almost guarantee you this new tax cut for the ultra wealthy will not help one person who is in the Tea Party that helped to vote the Republicans back to power in the House and the Senate. How many Tea Party voters are in the top 0.2% on income earners, I would bet none.

GOP Candidates Shocked About Real Journalists Asking Them Questions
By: Steve - April 18, 2015 - 10:00am

Most of the time Republicans avoid the real press, instead they go on Fox and spin out their talking points with no hard questions. They've remained distant from what they commonly refer to as the so-called "Liberal Media" or what Sarah Palin likes to call, "The Lame Stream Media."Which is just in reality the real media with no conservative bias, that they call the liberal media.

They opt for a friendlier FOX News that barely qualifies as the media in any real sense, lobbing softball questions, coached answers, and never asking any follow-up questions.

Recently though, GOP presidential candidates have started to wander out of their self-congratulatory echo chamber to brave the supposed adversarial reporters they see as the enemy.

It's a so-called enemy armed with real questions and who expect, of all things, answers to those questions -- a scenario most of the GOP are not only ill prepared and ill-equipped for, but seem almost shocked that they weren't asked onto the show to spin and expound on their latest talking point.

It gets a little dangerous for the GOP candidates and a little comical for the rest of us when the media actually questions the rhetoric and propaganda put out to the otherwise ignorant and uninformed.

It's easy to claim that Obamacare is a job killer, that you're for the middle class, that there's a war on Christians, that gays have declared Jihad, or that we need to take your country back when the person sitting across from you is nodding their head in agreement, spewing the same lies and BS day in and day out. As with Bill O'Reilly and everyone alse at FOX.

It's an entirely different scenario when an actual journalist presents you with facts and statistics proving you wrong. Then they have no idea what to do, except attack the person who is pointing out their lies with the crazy liberal bias claims.

We had one hell of a show when Romney ran against Obama in 2012 and the entire FOX echo chamber sat in disbelief when Romney was crushed. There was no preparation for that result. Romney was so sure that he would win he had not even prepared a concession speech. Karl Rove was so stunned on the night of the election and remained that way for days having to be reminded, several times, by Megyn Kelly that Obama won.

Then we had Ted Cruz, earlier this month Cruz showed up on CNBC with John Harwood and was called out for several statements he made that were lies.

Harwood, during the one-on-one with Cruz brought up one comment in particular that Cruz made during a speech in March about taking the "110,000 agents at the IRS" and putting them on the southern border.

"They've only got 25,000 agents," Harwood said. "You've talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We're adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn't somebody listen to you and say, 'The guy'll just say anything -- doesn't have to be true'?"

Cruz then lashed out at the media, because that's another good idea, saying, "There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It's this new species of yellow journalism called politi-fact. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they're literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek."

Cruz defended himself, saying he was just making a joke. A joke that no on laughed at and no one got. Is that where we are now? Where politicians running for the highest office can excuse their gross misrepresentations by claiming that they were, "just kidding?"

Which is what I call the O'Reilly comeback, when caught saying something that is wrong or a lie just say you were making a joke. That is what O'Reilly does all the time. When he is caught saying something wrong or racist he just says he was making a joke. But when a Democrat does the very same thing and they say it was a joke, O'Reilly says that is no excuse. Showing his hypocrisy and his double standards.

Rand Paul has also shown his adversity to being questioned, going beyond righteous indignation to on-air tantrums. During a Today Show interview Savannah Guthrie asked Paul, "You've had views in the past on foreign policy that are somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years. You once said Iran was not a threat, but now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel. You now support it, at least for the time being, and you once offered to drastically cut defense spending and now you want to increase it sixteen percent, so I just wonder if you've mellowed out?"

Paul went into full meltdown and tantrum, berating Guthrie. Guthrie then pointed out specific examples of Paul changing positions and flip-flopping in every direction on every issue because he is trying to make himself an acceptable candidate to Republican primary voters. Guthrie asked Paul, during the friendliest morning show, if his positions had changed. She was giving him a chance to explain away inconsistencies, not brow beating him.

Paul, rather than take the opportunity to clarify his position and explain to prospective voters where he stands, instead demonstrated his inability to answer simple questions. He chose to lecture Guthrie, a former White House correspondent and accomplished journalist, in an obviously sexist way, begging the question if he would have addressed a male reporter in the same way, which of course he would not, because on later shows with male interviewers who asked the same things he did not berate them.

Marco Rubio is next on the chopping block, having announced his bid earlier this week. If he decides to venture out into the world of Cruz's mythical "yellow journalism" he may be asked about his past scandals like double-billing flights or misuse of party credit cards; or why he flip-flopped on immigration reform; how he used to believe in climate change and God forbid, science.

Maybe he'll be asked why he thinks his ideas to defeat ISIS differ from Obama's sound exactly like them. The one that may be of most interest though, is that Rubio is not the son of Cuban exiles as his Senate bio claims.

According to a Rubio biography due out in June by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Rubio's grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia was an illegal immigrant to the United States. Disillusioned by his financial prospects, Garcia reportedly left the United States for Cuba two weeks after Fidel Castro took power in 1959.

He flew back to the States two years later without a visa...and was booked by a US immigration official, who stated: "You do not appear to me to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to enter the United States." Garcia was ordered deported, but instead he hung out illegally in Miami, resurfacing in 1967 to petition for permanent residency. Even though Garcia had been in the US since 1962, "The form he filled out then states that he had been a Cuban refugee since February 1965."

Maybe that was a joke too? Maybe it was misinterpreted or taken out of context? We hear that a lot too. Even in this day of constant video, recordings, and 24-hour news, Republican politicians seem to find a way to weasel out of what they actually said or wrote.

The level of false indignation, arrogance and accusatory tone many of these candidates seem to think they can take with the press is no surprise. The Press is there to hold politicians accountable for what they say. In many cases, particularly with those on the right, many of it is fabricated, exaggerated and misinterpreted.

When they're called on it they lash out like spoiled children caught in a lie. They throw tantrums, whine that they've been treated unfairly, and sulk. Hopefully reporters and journalist will continue to call politicians out in an effort to hold them accountable for what comes out of their mouths.

And btw, O'Reilly says nothing about all these softball interviews of GOP candidates on Fox, but when Democratic candidates get a softball interview on MSNBC he cry's foul and screams bloody murder.

The GOP is so used to softball FOX interviews that offer them a national stage to say whatever they want with no push-back. If the little resistance to their BS we've seen in the last few weeks is any indication of what's to come, it should make for an entertaining campaign season.

Rand Paul Tells White Republicans Democrats Have Failed Minorities
By: Steve - April 17, 2015 - 11:00am

Over the weekend Rand Paul gave a speech in Nevada saying that the Democratic Party has failed minorities, while speaking to a crowd that was 99% white and Republican. So I guess he is saying they should vote Republican, even though if the Republicans had total control of the government they would stop all payments of everything to all minorities.

Which would be insane, it would be like voting to have all government benefits to minorities stopped, and minorities would be crazy to do that.

The problem is obvious. Rand Paul is telling a crowd that is almost all white that the Democratic Party has failed minorities. Now is a good time to point out that Rand is selling himself as the candidate that can attract minorities and young voters. What was missing from the crowd in his speech today? Minorities and young voters.

It's like O'Reilly telling blacks how to live, from an old, white, rich, Republican who is opposed to everything that benefits them. And if a black guy tells O'Reilly or a Republican how to live he flips out and tells them to mind their own business.

The mainstream media is even helping Rand Paul, even though O'Reilly claims they are all liberals, they are doing their best to sell Rand Paul as a legitimate candidate, just like they tried to sell Ted Cruz as a legitimate candidate after he jumped into the 2016 presidential race.

This is part of the favorable coverage that all of the Republican presidential candidates have been getting since the 2012 election cycle.

Rand Paul is telling white Republicans what they want to hear about Democrats and minorities. If this is Paul's version of attracting minority voters, it's not going to end well.

The Republican solution for minorities is the same as it is for the rest of the country that isn't rich. You are on your own pal.

Paul disguises his corporate agenda with talk of liberty and freedom. A right-wing white candidate was talking to right-wing white voters about how the opposition party has failed minority voters, which is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party.

Instead of actually supporting policies the minorities support, they run their propaganda past them and hope they buy it, when that same tactic has failed them for 50 years, because 97% of minorities vote Democratic, and that will never change until they change their positions on the issues, propaganda does not work, and yet they keep trying it over and over.

O'Reilly Spins Out More Right-Wing Garbage About Being Fair To Hillary
By: Steve - April 17, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said this Monday night:
O'REILLY: This country is in trouble, economically and overseas. While the left will never admit that, it's true. And whoever the next president is, is going to inherit one big mess. The jihadists are threatening millions of people. Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon.

Working Americans are still struggling to make money in the marketplace and our traditional American values are under siege nearly everywhere. If you're a Christian or a white man in the U.S.A. it's open season on you. Therefore Hillary Clinton has an advantage.

She can run a general campaign, 'first woman in the White House' and 'I'm going to help you!' by increasing the entitlement society. It will take a very articulate and tough-minded Republican to defeat her.

One final thing, we at The Factor, as I said, we're going to be fair to Hillary Clinton. But we're going to be tough, as we are on all political candidates. I don't think gender matters one bit. And if this war on women business is resurrected we'll have something to say about it.
Wow, so many lies. Where do I start.

1) O'Reilly said the economy is in trouble and the left will never admit it. Well, this is real simple, the economy is not in trouble, it's doing great, jobs are up, unemployment is down, and the stock market is setting new record highs all the time.

The left will not admit the economy is in trouble, because it is not in trouble, in fact, nobody will admit the economy is in trouble. Only right-wing loons that can not admit the truth think it is, nobody else does, because the economy is doing great.

2) O'Reilly said Christian white men are open season and under attack. This is just laughable, and even John Stossel said O'Reilly was a big cry baby for saying that. White men are not under attack, from anyone. The people under attack are blacks who keep getting killed by cops for having a tail light out.

3) O'Reilly said he would be fair to Hillary. Then he did an entire show slamming her with 99% Republican guests. One Democratic guest was on the entire show and they were on with a Republican, so they barely got a word in. O'Reilly has never been fair to Hillary, or any Democrat, and never will be because he is a biased Republican.

An e-mailer even nailed him on it, saying this:

David Kelly, Louisville, CO: "Hey, Bill, no fair-minded person believes you will be fair to Hillary Clinton. You attacked her last night and implied that you would have something to say if she got mixed up with websites you dislike. Was that a threat?"

4) I have done studies where I watched the Factor every night for 3 months before the election, and counted how many negative things were said about the Democrat running for President, and the Republican. In every one O'Reilly has 10 to 1 negative to positive for the Democrat, while having the exact opposite for the Republican, with 10 to 1 positive to negative.

It's a joke, so when he says he will be fair to Hillary he is lying, and I will prove it.

Leaked Document From Mayor to Cops: Your Paycheck Depends on How Many Tickets You Write
By: Steve - April 16, 2015 - 11:30am

And of course the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never reported a word about this story, nothing.

Edmundson, MO -- While police and their supporters continue to insist that police are simply out there keeping our streets safe, an internal document sent from the Edmundson Mayor John Gwaltney implies otherwise. The letter, which was included with the paychecks of the town's police officers, spells out in very plain terms their actual role in the community - extorting money for the state.

In the document obtained by ThinkProgress, the mayor is careful to point out that the town does not have quotas. He states that he only wants "good tickets" written but adds that he is still very disappointed that the Department had been extorting fewer people. Gwaltney goes on to threaten the officers bank accounts, stating;

"The tickets that you write do add to the revenue on which the P.D. budget is established and will directly affect pay adjustments at budget time."

He doesn't stop with their pay either, the mayor then goes on to imply that the officers benefits may be in danger, should they not get their ticket production up by budget time.

"It has always been the desire of myself and the Board to provide a safe and pleasant work place with good compensation and benefits for everyone. However, our ability to continue doing this is being compromised by your work slow down. I realize that your work production records are directly effected by many extenuating circumstances and those factors are always accounted for as your work records are reviewed by myself and human resources," the mayor warns.

One fifth of Edmundson's population is below poverty level, and the town collects 35% of its revenue from tickets and fines.

While departments will usually deny quotas exist, more and more police have been admitting to their existence, despite the careful wording to leave enough wiggle room for plausible deniability.

Just last week there was a story about a cop who admitted to the use of quotas and was captured on video.

"This is the last day of the month. I get every stat I need just off of you guys," says the officer as he begins his rights violating confession.

"So you guys gotta make quota, huh?" asks the detained teen.

"We don't have a quota. We have expectations. And what that means is, you will make so many arrests a month, you should write so many tickets a month, and you should haul so many dumbasses to jail a month. If we're gonna pay you $100,000 a year, we should expect something back from you, shouldn't we?" says the officer.

When the man replies, 'yes' that he understands what the officer just said, the cop then asks, "Would you like to be part of my quota tonight?"

The young man then asks the cop, "On what grounds would you arrest me?"

To which the cop replies, "'On what grounds?' Oh, I don't know, I'll think of something. How about aiding and abetting reckless driving?"

There is no money in solving murders and rape cases, but pursuing victimless crimes such as minor traffic violations and catching a kid with a joint provide a steady stream of revenue for the city. Protect and serve, or stalk and extort? Perhaps it is time to change that motto.

Biased Krauthammer Predicts Hillary Will Lose To Republican In 2016
By: Steve - April 16, 2015 - 11:00am

What a shocker, not. The biased right-wing hack who works for Fox News is predicting Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primary and then lose to the Republican running against her.

His evidence, he said so, he has no evidence, and in fact he was wrong in the last presidential election, just as Karl Rove was. Here is what he said.

Krauthammer said she'll be "easily beaten" if Republicans put forth a dynamic candidate. He said she'll lose in part due to her "glaring inauthenticity," explaining that Americans become "instantly fatigued" when they hear her parse words.

Which is total nonsense and nothing but right-wing propaganda, because everyone but Republicans like Hillary and they will all vote for her, something Krauthammer totally lies about.

Clinton has also been in politics longer than anyone else in the field, Krauthammer noted, explaining that the country wants renewal.

Now let me translate that, what he really meant was REPUBLICANS want renewal. The rest of the country is going to vote for Hillary, and not some far-right loon in the Republican party.

Krauthammer said that the former secretary of state will "hands down" win the Democratic nomination.

"It won't be a coronation, it'll be a worship service," he said.

And now some actual evidence that Krauthammer is wrong. Hillary is beating every single Republican they might run against her in the polls, by 10 or more points. Now my opinion, she will beat whoever they run, and be the first woman President in the history of America.

Krauthammer will eat his words and be proven wrong again.

Obama Slams Republicans For Un-American Tactics On Foreign Policy
By: Steve - April 16, 2015 - 10:00am

Over the weekend, President Obama called out Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and all the Senate Republicans who are actively trying to sabotage his foreign policy on the world stage.

And btw, you can bet the farm if Democrats did this to a Republican President O'Reilly would call for them to be tried for treason, or sedition at the least. But when Republicans do it to a Democratic President, not only does O'Reilly not call for them to be tried for treason or sedition, he defended them and said it was no big deal.

Obama said this:
Last comment I'm going to make on this. When I hear some, like Senator McCain recently, suggest that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, who served in the United States Senate, a Vietnam veteran, who's provided exemplary service to this nation, is somehow less trustworthy in the interpretation of what's in a political agreement than the Supreme Leader of Iran -- that's an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries.

And we're seeing this again and again. We saw it with the letter by the 47 senators who communicated directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran -- the person that they say can't be trusted at all -- warning him not to trust the United States government.

We have Mitch McConnell trying to tell the world, oh, don't have confidence in the U.S. government's abilities to fulfill any climate change pledge that we might make.

And now we have a senator suggesting that our Secretary of State is purposely misinterpreting the deal and giving the Supreme Leader of Iran the benefit of the doubt in the interpretations.

That's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who's President or Secretary of State. We can have arguments, and there are legitimate arguments to be had.

I understand why people might be mistrustful of Iran. I understand why people might oppose the deal -- although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se, but they just don't trust any deal with Iran, and may prefer to take a military approach to it.

But when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the United States government and our Secretary of State is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one that you say is your enemy, that's a problem. It needs to stop.
The President directly called out the Majority Leader of the Senate and the 47 Republican senators who signed the letter to Iran for actively trying to undermine his foreign policy.

President Obama is 100% correct. This does need to stop, but it won't because in part the Republican tactics are trying to ruin American foreign policy ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Republicans have shattered the rule that partisan politics stop at the U.S. border.

Republicans think that their path to the White House in 2016 is to sabotage American foreign policy. President Obama is standing up and exposing what the opposition is trying to do. But Obama is not sitting back and taking it. The message to McConnell, McCain, and others is that this president is going to finish out his time in office on the attack.

Stossel Calls O'Reilly 10 Foot Cry Baby About War On Religion
By: Steve - April 15, 2015 - 10:00am

Stossel: "Christians Aren't Being Killed" In America "And They're Not Going To Be"

To which the insane O'Reilly said "not yet." Making him a total far-right religious nut, as Stossel said Christians are 85% of the country so you won, but O'Reilly still defended his insane war on religion propaganda.

Then the fool said they are killing christians with words, which is also insane.

Here is the video:

People Who Got Iraq Wrong Now Want Us To Believe Them On Iran
By: Steve - April 14, 2015 - 10:00am

I guess they think we will forget they got it all wrong on Iraq. Including O'Reilly, who supported the Iraq war 100% and said he thought they had WMD's. O'Reilly even lies that nobody did not believe it, when there were many people saying it, including Scott Ritter and many more.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) doesn't have to think very hard to remember what happened after he visited Iraq in 2002, before Congress voted for a war to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

"I became ‘Baghdad Jim," McDermott said this week. "That was during a campaign year. People came up on my lawn and wrote Baghdad Jim on my yard signs."

What McDermott had done to earn that was to say during an interview from Iraq's capital with ABC News George Stephanopolous, his opinion that President George W. Bush's administration was dummying up the case for war.

"I think the president would mislead the American people," McDermott said, sparking a firestorm of criticism back home, where he was labeled disgraceful and accused of slander by war-supporting pundits.

Of course, in one of history's more humbling lessons, McDermott turned out to be right -- not just about the quality of the case being made for war, but also about the potentially destabilizing impact of a poorly considered military intervention.

Americans responded to the Iraq war failures, in part, by electing President Barack Obama, who argued for a different, more diplomatic approach to global challenges.

Yet, more than 13 years after the Bush White House and Congress chose their ill-fated course, many of those same leaders are again insisting on a more bellicose approach, arguing against Obama's diplomatic endeavors in Iran, and taking steps that may undermine nuclear negotiations.

McDermott remembers well the arguments made by the same people back then.

"There is a principle of communication which is very well known, and has been documented in a variety of different ways. But it comes down to, if you can make people afraid, you can make them do anything," McDermott said. "And these warmongers are fearmongers, and they are creating as much fear in the American people as possible."

And a comparison with today's rhetoric finds many of the same people making similar cases with exactly the same certitude they displayed before being proven wrong about Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), current chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, complained in 2002 that a policy of "hoping Hussein can be contained" had allowed Iraq to become "one giant WMD factory" that threatened the entire Middle East and America.

One of the most credible, effective proponents of war in 2002 was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former Vietnam prisoner of war who lost to President George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries.

McCain argued that continuing a policy of deterrence against Iraq "would condemn Saddam's neighbors to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish."

He also confidently predicted: "I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult."

McCain's longtime ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), then a member of the House, declared that attacking Iraq was "long overdue" and that "when the smoke clears, the Iraqi people will taste freedom for the first time in decades."

McCain and Graham are hardly unique. Pick just about any lawmaker who voted for the war in 2002, and they are likely to be making arguments of a similar tenor now. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) argued strongly for a pre-emptive approach against Saddam, saying then that the risks of the more diplomatic strategy were "simply unacceptable."

For Jim McDermott, who was insulted when he was right, it's a case of deja vu all over again, especially when he hears Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) suggest the United States could carry out a few days of bombing to take care of Iran, or when one of the lead architects of the Iraq War, former Vice President Dick Cheney, says the Iran talks convince him that Obama is "the worst president we ever had."

"My response to that would be Dick Cheney is the worst president we ever had," McDermott said.

McDermott recalled. "Shock and awe -- that worked for about 60 days, and then we had 14 years of what we got now. Fourteen going on 30."

He had some advice for the hawks limbering up their wings for a new battle. "If we launch off into another one in Iran, we simply are out of our political minds. We're just not making sense," McDermott said. "We have the biggest military in the world, $660 billion, and we're fighting on every floor, and we don't have control of anything. We thought we'd won Iraq, we backed out, and now we're back in."

Regarding Iran, McDermott noted that there are decades of history that give Iran reason to mistrust America, including the CIA's overthrow of democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, which led to decades of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's repressive regime.

"Nobody remembers what we did to those people, but they remember,' McDermott said. "They haven't forgotten what we did by putting the shah in, and what that did to Iran and its national treasure.

"You listen to a guy like Cheney and you say yourself, 'Man, have you ever read a book?'" McDermott said, suggesting the hawks might benefit by looking past raw fear and ideology, and taking a longer view. "When you look at the situation, you just say to yourself, they're not thinking clearly about what's going on here."

Fox Host: I Didn't See A Black Man Killed By A White Cop
By: Steve - April 13, 2015 - 10:00am

Racism seems to be a subject where many people on the right are unable to be realistic or rational about much of anything.

Enter Fox News Greg Gutfeld, who said some of the most ignorant and delusional nonsense I have heard yet concerning the killing of Walter Scott by the now fired and charged with murder police officer Michael Slager in South Carolina.

And this loon is a regular on the O'Reilly Factor every week, who is also a fill-in host for O'Reilly once in a while.

During The Five, Gutfeld claimed he didn't see a "black man killed by a white cop," he just saw one man kill another man. "I saw a man shoot another man in the back."

But his reasoning for that statement was even more ridiculous, he also said this. "I saw an actual act. You can't theorize -- you can't come up with hypotheticals -- you actually see that," he continued, talking about the video of the shooting.

"Unlike talking heads like us, or activists, the camera sees more than color. The camera captures the actual incident that, in my view, cannot be justified." He also went on to say that "cameras, unlike people, aren't biased" while advocating that we need cameras basically everywhere.

And btw folks, a retired FBI agent recently said that from what he saw in the video no matter what happened, the officer was not justified to shoot an unarmed man in the back who was running away from him and no danger to anyone else, over a simple traffic stop. He said the cop was wrong, that he should be charged with murder, and predicted he would be found guilty.

Yes, the Fox News host actually tried to turn a shooting that seems to have at least some sort of racial implications into something that justifies massive surveillance programs, while denying that race had anything to do with the shooting itself. And what the hell does "the camera see more than color" even mean?

The camera showed an African-American man being gunned down in cold blood by a white police officer as he was running away in a state that where racism is still fairly prevalent. After all, let's not forget that South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union during the Civil War; it supported segregation; and opposed interracial marriage -- so let's not pretend like the state has been a beacon of racial acceptance throughout our history.

As I have said before, racism is extremely hard to prove. While this video clearly shows a black man being gunned down in cold blood, it's not as if the shooter is ever going to admit that Scott's race had anything to do with it.

I have seen people on the right claim the Ku Klux Klan is not a "hate group" or "racist" saying they're just promoting "European Americans."

We have all seen a lot of racism, even my Father who I loved to death was racist, and yet I have met very few people who actually think they're racists, let alone admit to it. I even have some racist friends, who say terrible things about blacks and use the n-word all the time, but I ignore it and do not say anything to them.

When you're dealing with that kind of ignorance, it's practically impossible to have any semblance of a rational discussion. But Gutfeld kept to the typical Fox News and conservative rhetoric that no matter what the circumstances, racism clearly had nothing to do with it.

Ted Cruz Mad That People Keep Pointing Out His Lies
By: Steve - April 12, 2015 - 11:00am

Sounds like someone I know, yes, Bill O'Reilly. Who does the very same thing, when someone points out his lies he gets mad and attacks them as dishonest. When he is the dishonest one and they are simply doing honest journalism. It's a diversion trick, attack the attacker and make them out to be the bad guy.

It's hard for me to understand how Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can be so ridiculous and wrong about so many things, and yet there are still millions of Americans who support and believe him.I guess it shows how partisan bias is blind, when you agree with someone you believe what you want to believe, and ignore everything you don't want to believe.

I guess that's what happens when people care more about listening to someone who tells them what they want to hear instead of what's actually true.

It's been well documented that Cruz is easily one of the most dishonest people we have in Congress. His entire political life is based on a fictitious reality that only exists in his mind and those who support him. After all, this is the guy who feverishly pushed for a government shutdown, telling conservatives it could be successful, when absolutely nobody with any common sense saw any scenario where anything Cruz was pushing for was going to happen.

A lot of members of his own party even called him out for working up conservative voters with lies they knew were impossible to fulfill. Including the Republican Congressman Peter King from New York, who said he was a clown. And Republicans never slam another Republican, unless he really screwed up and is making them all look bad.

If a recent interview Cruz did with John Harwood is any indication, it seems the Republican senator isn't the biggest fan of fact-checking sites such as Politifact using his exact words against him. After mentioning several claims Cruz has made, especially one recently about sending 125k IRS agents to the border (there are only 25k in total) and "Obamacare" killing jobs, when it added jobs, Hardwood asked, "Why shouldn't somebody listen to you and say, 'The guy'll just say anything, doesn't have to be true?'"

"There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers," Cruz said. "It's this new species of yellow journalism called Politifact. Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they're literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek."

Discounting the fact that Politifact is non-partisan and they also fact-check Democrats as much as they do Republicans, and he also ignores the fact that even other Republicans and conservative news sources say he is lying on some things.

Cruz sounds exactly like O'Reilly, when he is caught in a lie he slams the reporter and claims it is a big liberal plan to make him look bad, even though what they reported is true, and non-liberal sources also reported the same thing. And neither one of them ever prove the reporter wrong, they just attack them as liberals with an agenda, while not proving what they reported is not true.

Cruz is saying the non-partisan Politifact is "a left-wing editorial" filled with yellow journalism because Cruz seems immune to saying anything truthful. Oh, but his misinformation and lies are okay, because if he ever gets called out on something ridiculous he's said -- he was just joking. When he made the claim about sending "125k IRS agents to the border" a few weeks ago, he wasn't kidding. He later found out we only have 25k IRS agents in total, so he tried to cover up his mistake by saying he was just joking, but if you watch the tape you can see he was not joking.

This isn’t the first time Cruz has whined because Politifact continues to point out the fact that he seems unable to be honest about much of anything.

Cruz has proven time and time again that he does not care how wrong he is, or how much he lies, because he's well aware that the voters to which he's appealing to are not concerned with the truth -- they just want someone to tell them what they want to hear, no matter how inaccurate it is.

And that's exactly what Ted Cruz does. He has joined club Bill O'Reilly, and they both do the very same thing. In fact, I would not be shocked if I found out O'Reilly advised him on how to do it, attack the attacker and use diversion tricks, that is what O'Reilly does when he gets caught lying.

Maher: Scott Shooting Shows Police Problem More Than Few Bad Apples
By: Steve - April 11, 2015 - 11:00am

Friday night Bill Maher tackled the tragic shooting of Walter Scott and said it's pretty clear that there is a problem with police culture and it needs to change.

What disturbed Maher most about the video of Officer Michael Slager shooting Scott is how "routine and nonchalant" it feels. Fareed Zakaria brought up under-reported stats on these kind of shootings, while Christina Bellantoni talked about how cameras on phones have helped the conversation in so many ways.

Maher and Ross Douthat went back and forth a little about a new Republican focus on criminal justice reform. Maher said the right "definitely thinks racism is over in America" and brought up the issue of gun culture, before saying that police culture needs to change.

He acknowledged the idea that a lot of cops are good, but seeing the Scott video made it very clear that it's not just a few bad apples, "there's something wrong with the whole barrel."

Pew Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong That America Is A Center-Right Country
By: Steve - April 11, 2015 - 10:00am

And of course, O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he does not want you to know the truth, he wants you to believe his right-wing propaganda that America is a center right country, so here are the facts.

Pew Research dug deep into the long term trends on party affiliation and found that more demographic groups lean Democratic than Republican, and more Americans lean towards supporting Democrats.

Pew found that Republicans are just who they are often thought to be. Mormons (+48) and Evangelical Christians (+46) were the heaviest skewing Republican groups followed by white Southerns (+21), white men with some or no college education (+21), white voters (+9), and voters age 69-86 (+4).

The demographic groups that tilt Democratic include Blacks (+69), Asians (+42), religiously unaffiliated (+36), postgraduate women (+35), Jewish (+30), Hispanics (+30), millennials (+16).

According to Pew, more Americans lean Democratic than Republican:
Most of those who identify as independents lean toward a party. And in many respects, partisan leaners have attitudes that are similar to those of partisans -- they just prefer not to identify with a party.

The balance of leaned partisan affiliation has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Democrats have led in leaned party identification among the public for most of the past two decades.
One of the reasons why Republicans have lost five of the last six popular votes in presidential elections is that more Americans lean towards supporting the Democratic Party.

Something O'Reilly ignores and never reports on. He claims America is a center-right country, while Democrats are winning the popular vote in almost every Presidential election now, which is the most important election where most people vote.

The media and Republicans like to perpetuate the myth that America is a conservative nation, but the reality is that America is a lot more liberal than conservatives care to admit.

Pew examined data from 1992-2014, and the result confirms that the Democratic Party is more diverse than the GOP.

The key demographics for Republicans are centered around evangelicals, Mormons, whites, Southerners, men, and older Americans. This group is more likely to care about beliefs and social issues over economics and pocketbook politics.

With Democrats emphasizing middle-class economics and populist ideas, it is not surprising that they hold a built-in advantage with much of the national electorate.

One of the byproducts of the Republicans Great Recession under Bush is that the country has moved left. And now most voters oppose the Republican agenda of trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the wealthy.

And btw, here is something else O'Reilly never mentions. America is moving left more and more every year, and if Republicans don't come with it, they are going to a regional party that gets left behind.

CIA Head: Critics Of Iran Deal Disingenuous On The Facts
By: Steve - April 10, 2015 - 10:00am

Many critics of the Iran deal last week, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have said that the deal does not block Iran's path to obtain a nuclear bomb, but instead paves it.

But the CIA Director John Brennan spoke about the deal Tuesday at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and responded to that particular criticism from Netanyahu and others.

Brennan said this:
"The individuals who say that this deal provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb are being wholly disingenuous, if they know the facts and understand what is required for a program. I certainly am pleasantly surprised that the Iranians have agreed to so much here."
He also said critics should not be trying to dismantle the deal by making unrealistic demands, saying this: "You're not going to get the Iranians to just totally dismantle everything and say, 'OK, we're not going to pursue any type of nuclear capability from a peaceful perspective.'"

And those are the facts, not the right-wing propaganda you get from the Republicans who would not tell you the truth if you paid them.

O'Reilly Was Dishonest About Stats Covering Police Shootings
By: Steve - April 9, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly cited debunked statistics to claim that more white than black Americans are killed by police officers in the wake of the fatal South Carolina police shooting of an unarmed black man.

While at the same time doing an unfair and unbalanced segment on the story, with a biased guest who agreed with him, and not having a counter guest to present the other side of the story. Not once did either one of them mention the police lied when they said it was self-defense. O'Reilly made the story about racial tensions instead of making it about a dishonest cop who lied.

He actually implied the protestors were wrong to complain, and slammed people like Al Sharpton for speaking out about it, even though we know the cop lied and will be charged with murder. O'Reilly did admit the cop was wrong to kill the guy and that he will most likely be convicted, but the rest of it was right-wing spin and defending the cops, while citing cherry-picked and debunked stats about police shootings.

A police officer was charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed black man in North Charleston, South Carolina on April 7, as reported by The New York Times. The Times noted that "the shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers' using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men."

On the April 8th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly condemned the South Carolina shooting, but used the opportunity to claim that "police shootings of black Americans" have fallen "70 percent in the last 40, 50 years," concluding that the statistics show "they're way, way down."

O'Reilly cited the statistic to claim that "there doesn't seem to be, as some people would have you believe, that police are trying to hunt down young black men and take their lives."

Which is a joke, because nobody says they are. The problem is there are some white cops who seem to be trigger happy to shoot blacks for anything, white not shooting whites for the same things. Then they lie about it and cover it up, and usually get away with it, except in this case where it was on tape and the cop was caught lying.

O'Reilly's statistics were debunked months ago when he initially cited them to claim that more white Americans are killed in police shootings than black Americans. Politifact called O'Reilly's claim "mostly false," noting that he relied on "shaky" statistics that fail to "paint a complete picture" due to a lack of comprehensive national data on fatal shootings by police officers.

And O'Reilly's statistics do not account for the disproportionate number of unarmed black Americans killed by police in the United States. As FiveThirtyEight wrote:
In 2014 and March of 2015, Mapping Police Violence counted 297 people killed by police around the country who were unarmed. Of those people, 117 were African-American, 167 were not, and the project couldn't identify race for 13.

That means 41 percent of unarmed people killed by police during that time in the database (with an identified race) were African-American, far out of proportion in a country that was 14 percent African-American in 2013.
What O'Reilly fails to do is measue the stats against the percent of blacks in America, that is where his argument falls apart. According to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), African Americans are the second "racial group most likely to be killed by law enforcement," following Native Americans.

The CJCJ said this: African Americans are 13 percent of the population, but they are victims in 26 percent of police shootings. Law enforcement kills African Americans at 2.8 times the rate of white non-Latinos, and 4.3 times the rate of Asians.

That is the stat O'Reilly should have used, because it shows the actual truth, but he did not use that stat, because he is a biased hack who does not want you to know the truth. Blacks are 13 percent of the population, but they are shot 26 percent of the time, which shows they are shot far more than whites. But O'Reilly used a stat to say whites are shot more than blacks, which is ridiculous, when you factor in the percentage of blacks in the population.

Man Who Filmed Walter Scott's Death Held Video To See If Police Lied
By: Steve - April 9, 2015 - 10:00am

And once he found out they were lying, he came out with the video to prove they were lying.

The outcry over the death of Walter Scott stems from a video, taken by an anonymous bystander that depicts police officer Michael Slager shooting at Scott eight times as he runs away.

In an interview with Time, however, Scott's brother says that the video may not have come out if the police hadn't initially tried to paint Slager as innocent.

Anthony Scott told Time that he found the circumstances surrounding his brother's death, caused after a routine traffic stop, highly suspicious. "When I got there somebody told me that he was gone. And I was like what in the world? What happened? What happened? How did you get killed in a random stop? It just didn't make any sense to me."

Officer Slager initially said that he shot Walter Scott out of fear for his life, claiming that he had taken his stun gun, and police performed CPR immediately on the shooting victim. The video, which Scott said he received at a wake earlier this week, showed otherwise:
"He wanted to see what reports were coming from the North Charleston Police Department because of the fact that they may have told the truth," Scott said in an phone interview from home with TIME Wednesday.

"And when they continued with the lies, he said, 'I have to come forward.'"

"I was angry. Shocked," Scott said. "I said, 'We have to have that.' So that we could prove it was innocent."
Scott credits the bystander and the video with getting Slager charged with murder. "I think that if that man never showed the video we would not be at the point that we're at right now," he said.

"The video tells the truth. It would not be so hard for us to prove that this man was running away when you get shot in your back. I mean how can you defend that?"

Officer Charged With Murder For Killing Unarmed Black Man
By: Steve - April 8, 2015 - 11:00am

Not only did he lie that it was self-defense he was also seen on the video planting a weapon on the victim.

A North Charleston officer who previously claimed he shot and killed a suspect in self-defense now faces murder charges, as a newly-surfaced video shows 50-year-old Walter Larner Scott running away from Patrolman Michael Thomas Slager.

Last Saturday, Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light in West Ashley, South Carolina. According to Slager, Scott attempted to flee the scene before trying to reach for the officer's Taser. Feeling threatened, Slager deployed his weapon.

Which sounds almost like the exact same story the cop in Ferguson used when he killed Michael Brown, he said the kid was reaching for his gun.

What got him in trouble is a video that was recorded and submitted by an unnamed bystander, it actually shows Scott running away from Slager when eight shots are fired in his direction. Slager repeatedly yells at Scott, who's laying on the ground, to put his hands behind his back, before handcuffing him.

He basically shot him 8 times in the back as he was running away, after being pulled over for having a fricking tail light out, then the officer plants a gun on him, and he would have got away with it, except someone filmed it so we know the truth.

On Tuesday, the town's City Council was informed that Slager will be relieved of his duties. And Mayor Keith Summey confirmed Slager will also be charged with murder.

Although cops are rarely indicted for the use of deadly force, even if they're caught on film, another South Carolina police officer -- in that case, a small town police chief -- was indicted for shooting an unarmed black man, late last year.

O'Reilly Compares Anti-Discrimination Laws To Forcing Blacks To KKK Meeting
By: Steve - April 8, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly: "If Somebody Invites You, Juan Williams, To An Event, Say A Ku Klux Klan Rally... It's The Same Thing"

Here is a partial transcript:

O'REILLY: Pretty interesting argument that the former Senator from Pennsylvania is making.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, I this it's an artful dodge. A Clear diversion from the real issue here. It's the difference between a matter of discretion and discrimination, Bill. Clearly, the government has an interest in protecting everyone's rights, your civil liberties as Americans, and that includes if you're black, Jewish, female, whatever. But when it comes to a matter of discretion, you and I do business, you know, you run a very successful TV show, the government doesn't tell you what to do, but if you start discriminating against people, then they say "you can't do that, Bill O'Reilly."

O'REILLY: You're making two mistakes. Number one, the discretion versus discrimination takes out the conscience level. So you say "okay, look, gays have to be protected, blacks have to be protected, Jews have to be protected, minorities have to be protected." What about Christians? Christians are a majority. They have to be protected, too, right?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: So, the pizza store didn't say "look, we are not going to sell you a slice of pizza if you're gay," they just didn't want to go to an event - and the event being a gay marriage. So, if somebody invites you, Juan Williams, to an event, say a Ku Klux Klan rally, all right?


O'REILLY: You don't want to go there, okay?


O'REILLY: And you have the perfect right to say no.

WILLIAMS: No thank you.

O'REILLY: I don't like what the KKK stands for. I don't want to go to that event.

WILLIAMS: Correct.

O'REILLY: It's the same thing. The pizza place and other people say it violates my religious tenets to go or participate in a gay wedding ceremony. Not to sell a piece of pizza to gays. But to go to an event. Do you not see the difference?


But of course that is wrong, and only a right-wing idiot would even claim it's the same thing.

Obama Sets New Jobs Record: O'Reilly Totally Ignored It
By: Steve - April 7, 2015 - 10:00am

President Barack Obama just set a new jobs record, and the partisan right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly never even said a word about it, not one word. Which is just more proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge.

Because under Bush O'Reilly reported all this kind of good economic and financial news, all of it, every time a good jobs report came out O'Reilly reported it, and every time the stock market set a new high O'Reilly reported it, but when the very same things happen under Obama, O'Reilly never report it, he ignores it.

The Obama economy has set yet another job growth record in the private sector.

The first of five key points Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, made about the stats from the Bureau of Labor was that March makes the 61st straight month of job growth -- "extending the longest streak on record."

Upon the March job numbers being released by the Bureau of Labor, Furman issued a statement in conjunction with making five key points, the first of which was that this is the 61 straight month of job growth, the longest streak on record:
The private sector has added 12.1 million jobs over 61 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record. Today we learned that total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 126,000 in March, driven by a 129,000 increase in private-sector employment.

This particular month's job gains were below the recent trend, as job growth in a number of industries slowed somewhat. Over the past twelve months, the private sector has added 3.1 million jobs, nearly the highest year-over-year growth in the recovery so far.
Back in September of 2014, President Obama shattered President Clinton's previous record of 51 consecutive months of private sector job growth. In September, PUSA compared these two Democratic Presidents with Presidents Bush I and II, and even with President Reagan:
An excellent record of job growth under a Democratic President is not an anomaly. President Clinton added a total of 23.1 million jobs, while George W. Bush only added 3 million over his entire 8 year term and his father, George H.W. Bush, only added 2.5 million but he did that over one term. Ronald Reagan only added 16 million jobs, and he is held up by Republicans as the business God.
Before Republicans spit out more of their Obamacare job killing talking points, someone might want to familiarize them with this 61 month streak of adding jobs under Obama.

It's a record, and it's been a record for a while, so it's something that's hard to miss if you're awake and operating within some realm of reality.

Other points of good news are that real aggregate weekly earnings have risen "nearly 5% over the last twelve months." That’s purchasing power of wages and salaries for private sector employees. "Aggregate earnings are nearly 7 percent above their pre-crisis peak."

Which is something else O'Reilly never reported, while saying the real wages were down and going down more all the time, when in fact they have went up over the last year 5%, O'Reilly just refuses to tell you about it.

In all of this good news, we have all been aware that people still needed to make better wages, that wages have stagnated and have not risen to keep pace with inflation. Indeed, as the top 2% get wealthier and wealthier, working Americans are working more for less.

The Obama administration has been working hard to fix this, and has taken to going around Republican obstruction in Congress on this issue to work directly with mayors and governors around the country, and with private companies, to push for a raise to the minimum wage.

So it is more good news that hourly earnings have risen. But we still need better wages for working families.

Republican have done everything possible to kill any chance of an economic recovery from the Bush crash, so they can hardly take credit for private sector job growth under Obama.

Republicans went so far as to shutdown the government and force it to operate under their slash and dash sequester, which negatively impacted public sector jobs and hurt real Americans. They have refused to pass Obama's jobs bills.

O'Reilly has even said the economy is in chaos because of the liberal Obama economic policies, and he has said it as early as a couple weeks ago, which is total right-wing propaganda. The facts show the economy is doing great, O'Reilly and the right just can not admit it, because they said Obama was a failure, so they have to lie to you about it and hope you are dumb enough to believe their lies.

And remember this folks, O'Reilly said he never uses right-wing talking points, but here he is doing it with their Obama is a disaster for the economy propaganda.

O'Reilly Shocks Gretchen Carlson By Supporting Obama Iran Deal
By: Steve - April 6, 2015 - 10:00am

Democratic lawmakers endorsed the tentative deal the United States and its international partners reached on Thursday to contain Iran's nuclear program. And of course the Republicans flipped out and said it was a terrible deal.

But support for the agreement also came from an unusual source: Bill O'Reilly.

Appearing on Fox just minutes after President Obama held a news conference in the White House Rose Garden laying out the broad outlines for how the United States hopes to limit Tehran's nuclear capabilities, O'Reilly (a harsh critic of Obama's foreign policy) argued that conservatives should give diplomacy a chance.

"You don't want a war with Iran," he explained. "You don't want to bomb that country because the unintended consequences will set the world aflame. So if you can get something that's decent, you give it a shot. I think that's a legitimate point," O'Reilly said to a surprised Gretchen Carlson, host of the network's daytime show, The Real Story.

And the reason Carlson was shocked is that for once in his life O'Reilly is not going along with the Republican talking points that the Iran deal is terrible. She thought O'Reilly would spin out his usual right-wing talking points (And agree with her) as he does about 99.9% of the time. Maybe O'Reilly finally decided to be honest about something, instead of just spewing out the right-wing spin on it.

O'Reilly also warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against immediately rejecting the compromise, counseling the long-time opponent of talks to wait and see "specifically what the Iranians are going to agree to."

Under the terms of the plan, Iran will suspend over two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and dilute or ship overseas its enriched uranium stocks. Iran has agreed to slash its centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent or build new facilities for enrichment for 15 years.

It will, however, be able to continue "limited" research and development with advanced centrifuges.

Once inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirm that Iran has met its obligations, the United States, and the international community, will lift economic sanctions against the country. But those sanctions would "snap back into place" should Iran fail to meet its obligations, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House. A final agreement (including all technical deals) is expected to be reached by June 30th.

Speaking to reporters, Obama said that should Iran ultimately sign off on the final deal, "this framework would cut off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon."

He stressed that Iran will face "more inspections than any other country in the world" and continue to live under U.S. imposed sanctions for sponsoring terrorism, violating human rights, and threatening the state of Israel.

Carlson worried that the negotiations were "legitimizing Iran," while contributor KT McFarland proclaimed, "we've just given up everything!" And the rest of Fox flipped out saying Obama is a fool and this is the worst deal ever, which is expected of biased partisan hacks who never support anything the other side does.

Republican Leaders Boehner & McConnell Approval Ratings Hit New Low
By: Steve - April 5, 2015 - 10:00am

And of course the partisan right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, ever, not one time, nothing. But if the Obama approval ratings drop 1 point O'Reillly is all over it.

Republicans dreams have turned into nightmares as the approval ratings for Congress, Speaker Of the House John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have plummeted since the Republican takeover of Congress.

According to PPP, John Boehner (20/66 approval), and Mitch McConnell (20/56 approval) are all brutally unpopular.

It's a given that Boehner and McConnell are deeply unpopular with Democrats, but they also fare quite poorly with Republicans. The House Speaker has a 35/50 approval within his own party, and it's 31/43 for the Senator Majority Leader."

"Both of them are even more unpopular with independents than they are with the overall electorate, with Boehner at 13/73 with them and McConnell at 16/61."

It's a given that Boehner and McConnell are deeply unpopular with Democrats, but they also fare quite poorly with Republicans. The House Speaker has a 35/50 approval within his own party, and it's 31/43 for the Senator Majority Leader. Both of them are even more unpopular with independents than they are with the overall electorate, with Boehner at 13/73 with them and McConnell at 16/61."

In other words, Boehner, McConnell and the entire group of Congressional Republicans are universally unpopular. Among Republicans, Boehner and McConnell are disliked because some view them as too moderate, and there is a widely held belief by listeners of conservative talk radio that the Republican congressional leadership compromises with President Obama too much.

For everyone else who resides on planet Earth, Republicans are unpopular because of their refusal to pass popular legislation while they continue to push an unpopular agenda that is far out of step with the non-Republican segments of the country.

The myth that Obama is unpopular president falls apart when his approval ratings are compared with what Congressional Republicans are averaging.

President Obama is more than twice as popular as the Republican leaders of Congress. Obama has the sort of approval numbers that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can only dream about.

Republicans were hoping that their takeover of Congress would lead to a boost in approval ratings, but the opposite has happened. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are being held accountable for their agenda and the poor performance of the Congress that they are in charge of.

McConnell and Boehner are in free fall as the Republican-controlled Congress gets less and less popular by the day. And of course you would never know any of this if you watch the Factor for your news, because O'Reilly does not want you to know how unpopular the Republican party and their leaders are.

CBS Cameraman Says O'Reilly Lied About Rescuing Him In Buenos Aires
By: Steve - April 4, 2015 - 10:00am

Accused of lying on multiple occasions about his reporting experiences, Bill O'Reilly has maintained that "everything I've said about my reportorial career -- everything -- is true."

But now the cameraman who O'Reilly worked with in Buenos Aires after the end of the Falklands War has come forward to challenge the Fox host's account of what happened.

O’Reilly said he rescued a CBS colleague who "got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete."

"The camera went flying. I saved the tape because it was unbelievable tape. But I dragged him off the street because he was bleeding from the ear and had hit his head on the concrete," O’Reilly said in a 2009 interview.

But Ignacio Medrano-Carbo, who worked with O'Reilly during the protests, tells liberal magazine Mother Jones that he was neither injured nor in need of rescue.

"I never fell nor was I bleeding out my ear at any time during my Buenos Aires assignment," Medrano-Carbo told Mother Jones in a statement. "I do not even recall Mr. O'Reilly being near me when I shot all that footage nor after I left the unrest at Plaza de Mayo that evening."

O’Reilly has said he was working with CBS cameraman Roberto Moreno on the night of the Buenos Aires riots, but according to Medrano-Carbo, Moreno was a sound engineer at the time and did not begin working as a cameraman until years later.

O'Reilly has also said he witnessed widespread casualties during the Buenos Aires riot. Medrano-Carbo says this is also untrue. "I can confirm that no one I know of who worked with me in Buenos Aires during the Falkland War ever heard of any CBS crew member getting beat or hurt," he says. "Nor did any demonstrators get killed that night at Plaza de Mayo -- to quote a colleague, 'or we would've been following up at the morgue and interviewing family members.'"

Here is Medrano-Carbo's full statement to Mother Jones:
After a call from a cameraman friend, I watched Bill O'Reilly's report filed in 1982 from Buenos Aires for CBS during the Falkland War posted a few weeks ago on the Mother Jones web page. The part that caught my attention was Mr. O'Reilly's claim that he helped his cameraman to safety who was bleeding out of his ear after he fell when chased by the army.

Ninety-nine percent of the footage in that report was shot by me. I never fell nor was I bleeding out my ear at any time during my Buenos Aires assignment. I do not even recall Mr. O'Reilly being near me when I shot all that footage nor after I left the unrest at Plaza de Mayo that evening. But it is not uncommon to be separated from your reporter during a disturbance such as that one.

I also read that some colleagues were accusing Mr. O'Reilly of negligently asking his cameraman to turn on the camera light for his stand up. In his defense, I will attest that he never asked me to turn on the light for any reason. I turned on the camera light at my discretion and possible folly. I also never shot a stand up for Mr. O'Reilly.

In another report, Mr. O'Reilly states that his cameraman that night was Roberto Moreno. Mr. Moreno was indeed there but at that time he was a sound man and working with seasoned CBS cameraman Carl Sorensen. Mr. Moreno, who became my friend, did not pick up a camera until years later.

My last name is Medrano perhaps Mr. O'Reilly got confused since Mr. Moreno went on to shoot for CBS News? Medrano? Moreno?

Lastly, I can confirm that no one I know of who worked with me in Buenos Aires during the Falkland War ever heard of any CBS crew member getting beat or hurt. Nor did any demonstrators get killed that night at Plaza de Mayo -- to quote a colleague, "or we would've been following up at the morgue and interviewing family members."
O'Reilly has responded to the allegation, saying he never worked with Medrano. "I never worked with Ignacio Medrano-Carbo," O'Reilly said in a statement. "This is nothing more than yet another coordinated attack which predictably comes on the heels of my appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman."

Update (4:45 pm): Medrano-Carbo has responded to O'Reilly in a statement to Mother Jones. "I don't know what to say. Ninety-nine percent of that footage in his report was mine. How'd he get that footage, if I'm not his cameraman? I have the footage to show," Medrano-Carbo said.

He adds, "You can see me in the BBC report. Why would I lie? You used 99 percent of my stuff, and I'm not your cameraman? I certainly did not get beat up. You did not help me."

Bernie Sanders Slams Republican Senate Budget That Would Hurt Millions
By: Steve - April 3, 2015 - 10:00am

Republicans have essentially had the same economic philosophies since the 80's, with a few slight tweaks here and there. Whenever they pass any sort of budget it always boils down to more spending on defense, tax cuts for the rich and huge cuts in social programs for the poor and needy. Which is the very same economic and budgetary philosophies that led us into the worst economic crash (Under Bush) since the Great Depression.

But O'Reilly and the Republicans never mention that, they want you to forget that they crashed the economy, and tell you to vote Republican again, which is just insane.

It goes without saying that their newest budget proposal is more of the same. And Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is not a fan of the GOP's latest attempt to redistribute even more of our nation's wealth to the richest among us while gutting programs that help our poor and middle class.

"This budget throws 27 million Americans off health insurance," Sanders said.

And they would do it with no plan to replace it, if they could they would just dump 27 million people off of their health insurace plan.

"At a time when kids can't afford to go to college, and are leaving school deeply in debt, this budget cuts $90 billion from mandatory funding for Pell grants. At a time where we have 40 million people living in poverty, people struggling to put food on the table, this budget makes savage cuts to nutrition and food stamps and programs for pregnant women. So this is a horrendous budget."

And this is exactly what every American should expect from the Republican party. It's why most people on the left just can not understand why any poor or middle class American would ever vote for a Republican. It just doesn't make any sense. Time and time again Republicans prove that they couldn't care less about anyone or anything but the richest among us and big business.

They don't even try to hide it. But because they have masterfully managed to mislead and misinform millions of Americans into voting against their own interests by whipping up ridiculous fear toward social issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, guns and religion, they have successfully convinced a lot of people in this country to vote for the very people who are trying to make their lives even more difficult.

I can't count how many times I have seen someone who relies on Medicare for health care or Social Security for their livelihood, yet they're avid Republicans who claim that "they don't need help from the government."

Some Tea Party idiots even complained that they might lose their medicare, while saying they do not want any government benefits, when they were told medicare is a government program, they denied it and said do not touch it.

This is because of people like O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republican party. Their own people are so misinformed they protest against government programs they scream bloody murder when you try to take medicare away from them, which is one of the biggest government programs we have.

They put out propaganda to misinform their own voters to keep them voting Republican, and that along with all the money they spend to put out lie filled campaign ads they win some elections. If they had to fight with Democrats on an equal money playing field, and they were told the truth, no Republican would ever win, except in gerrymandered districts where it is rigged for the Republican to win every time.

No matter how hard I try, I can never wrap my head around the fact that someone would vote for a party that's calling them a lazy bum while constantly trying to cut the very benefits that they rely on just to survive. They even slam liberals who are on government programs, when in a lot of states more Republicans get government benefits than liberals do.

It makes absolutely no sense, yet tens of millions of Republicans do it every single election. It's easily one of the most baffling phenomenons I see in politics.

Lucky for us we have senators like Bernie Sanders in Congress. And we need more like him, who are willing to fight for the people and call out these horrific budgets proposed by the party that has somehow managed to convince millions of Americans that their lives will be better off by making the wealthiest among us even wealthier.

And what makes it worse is that corporate profits are at record highs, the stock market is at record highs, jobs are up, unemployment is down, and the top 1% are more wealthy than at any time in history. While middle class wages are down, and the Republicans want to take money away from the poor to make the wealthy more wealthy, it's insane, and anyone who votes Republican is just stupid.

Conservative Defense of Indiana's Anti-Gay RFRA Law Is All Lies
By: Steve - April 2, 2015 - 11:00am

Republican and Religious Right damage-control over Indiana's RFRA is chaotic and entertaining, and as dishonest as the day is long.

World Net Daily, in an attempt to defend Indiana's so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims that the "Fine print doesn't mention 'Christian,' doesn't target 'gays.'

If the fine print doesn't mention Christians and doesn't target gays, "how can it be an anti-gay hate bill?" they ask.

How about I pose a question for World Net Daily:

The United States Constitution does not mention God, Jesus, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or Christianity. Using your own logic, how can the United States be a Christian nation?

We have already seen efforts to claim that the RFRA is just the federal version. The Christian Post attempted this a few days ago, claiming, "Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a state-level version of the federal RFRA."

This is not true, and charitably, I will suggest the possibility that CP did not bother to actually read the bill. And the White House has even debunked this lie.

What's more, Pence and his fellow Republicans KNEW this was not just a repeat of the federal law, and 30 law professors warned them of this fact beforehand, informing them, in a letter:

"The proposed state RFRAs threaten to destabilize the harmony among fundamental rights struck by Indiana courts in a long line of cases and in a complex set of contexts. The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting religious liberty rights a special status."

We've even got Sean Hannity and Dinesh D'Souza asking why gays are mad at Indiana but aren't getting all hot and bothered by Sharia law. Well, I can take a wild guess here, but maybe it's because nobody is legislating Sharia law in Indiana?

It is obvious who the RFRA is directed toward. Its architects were anti-gay Religious Right activists - Micah Clark, Curt Smith, and Eric Miller - who then had their photo taken with Governor Pence at the signing ceremony, and who now vociferously defend the law.

EVERYONE knows what this bill is designed to do, from Franklin Graham on down. You might remember Graham's exclamation of joy, posted on Facebook just before the bill was signed into law:

"Thanks to those in government who are standing up for the freedom and protection of Christians to live out their faith."

Christians. Not Muslims. Not Jews. Certainly not gays, whatever their religious leanings.

Then there is the little matter of Indiana lawmakers admitting that the law permits "no gay" signs, which sort of puts to rest Ann Coulter's dishonest claim yesterday about "the utterly apocryphal assertion that the law will be used to turn gays away from restaurants."

It's not pretty. But neither was the law or its intended effects pretty. The lies that have followed have just made an ugly situation worse.

Maybe we should just tell the law's defenders that when they have got their story figured out, to get back to us. In the meantime, we will keep our dollars away from Indiana. Oh, and use our own First Amendment rights to make our opinions of their bigotry - and lies - heard.

Obama Spokesman Slams Pence For Lying About Indiana Religious Law
By: Steve - April 2, 2015 - 10:00am

During his daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest slammed and debunked Republican Gov. Mike Pence's lies about Indiana's religious freedom law.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked if President Obama feels a need to amend the 1993 federal religious freedom law.

Earnest said this:
I know that Gov. Pence has tried to falsely suggest that the law that was signed in Indiana is the same as the law that was passed at the federal level in 1993. That is not true, and the reason that that's not true is that the 1993 law was an effort to protect the religious liberty of religious minorities based on actions that could be taken by the federal government.

The Indiana law is much broader. It doesn't just apply to individuals or religious minorities. It applies to, and I'm quoting here, 'a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint stock company, or an unincorporated association.'

So this obviously is a significant expansion of the law in terms of the way that it would apply.

At the same time, it is also worth noting that the law in Indiana doesn't just apply to interactions with the government. It also applies to private transactions as well, which means that this is a much more open-ended piece of legislation that could reasonably be used to try to justify discriminating against somebody because of who they love.
Earnest also described Pence as being in "damage control" mode.

Pence's two main defenses of the law were pretty much destroyed by the White House Press Secretary. Pence continues to claim that the law does not legalize discrimination and that the Indiana law is just like the federal law that was signed in 1993.

Gov. Pence is trying to kill the backlash that he caused without feeding the perception that he is backing down.

The Indiana law is not the same as the 1993 federal law for all of the reasons that Earnest listed. It is also not the same as what Clinton signed because Indiana Republicans based their law on the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.

Gov. Pence and the law's defenders have been lying about the 1993 law, and the White House called them out on it.

The Obama White House has not been afraid to speak out against discrimination, and Tuesday's press briefing debunked the key components of the Republican defense of legalized discrimination.

Megyn Kelly Proves She Is Also A Right-Wing Spin Doctor
By: Steve - April 1, 2015 - 11:00am

O'Reilly said people like Megyn Kelly are not conservative and have no bias, so Fox is fair and balanced. But what he fails to admit is that she is also a conservative, and she spins for the right a lot. Just like all the other Fox hosts, they all have a conservative bias and spin for the right, while almost never taking the side of the liberals on an issue.

And here is another example of conservative bias from Megyn Kelly. She misleadingly compared Indiana's controversial anti-gay "religious freedom" law to laws in other states and claimed that the measure wouldn't allow for anti-LGBT discrimination, which is ridiculous and nothing but right-wing spin because they are taking heat for it.

On the March 30th Kelly File, Kelly invited Tony Perkins - president of the anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council (FRC) - and Truman National Security Project partner Mark Hannah to discuss Indiana's recently adopted "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA).

The law, which has triggered a national backlash, provides a legal defense for individuals and business owners who cite their religious beliefs while discriminating against LGBT people. Let's get real here, this law was put in place by religious right Republicans so a business can discriminate against gay people, and that is a fact, anyone who says different is either stupid or lying.

During the interview, Kelly suggested that Indiana's RFRA was similar to federal law and RFRAs in other states and denied that the measure could be used to justify anti-LGBT discrimination. Even though some business owners have already admitted the truth about the law, and have said they used it to refuse service to gay people.

Kelly and Perkins defense of Indiana's RFRA is wrong in two ways.

First, Indiana's RFRA is categorically different than federal RFRA and "religious freedom" laws in other states. Its definition of a "person" who can cite the law in a dispute is much broader than other laws, and the law allows individuals to claim a religious exemption in court "regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."

The ACLU of Indiana explains that those differences are "virtually without precedent" and make Indiana's RFRA much more expansive than other states measures. Even Fox's own Bret Baier dismissed the idea that Indiana's RFRA is, as Kelly claimed, "not really that unusual."

Second, Kelly ignores that the primary argument in favor of Indiana's RFRA was that the law will protect business owners who refuse to serve same-sex couples - a plain example of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If RFRA can be used to protect anti-gay wedding vendors, it might also be invoked to protect a host of other discriminatory acts, like a doctor refusing to treat the child of a same-sex couple.

And here is a big one, when Arizona considered similar legislation protecting anti-gay wedding vendors in 2014, Kelly called the measure "potentially dangerous."

Legal scholars, religious leaders, businesses, and even the Republican mayor of Indianapolis have all warned that the broad wording of Indiana's RFRA risks encouraging further anti-LGBT discrimination.

As the ACLU explained, "RFRA may embolden individuals and business who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally."

Kelly's misleading defense of Indiana's biased "religious freedom" law is just the latest example of why she's just as conservative as the rest of them at Fox. If she were an actual unbiased anchor as O'Reilly has claimed, she would not take the right-wing side on the issue, and not defend the law with the anti-gay Tony Perkins. Her position and how she reported on it proves she is one of them, a spin doctor for the right.

Krauthammer Slams O'Reilly Over Bergdahl/Gitmo Trade
By: Steve - April 1, 2015 - 10:00am

And for once I am going to agree with Charles Krauthammer, because no matter what Mr. Bergdahl did he is still an American citizen who joined the military to fight for his country, and we should have traded the Taliban prisoners for him.

O'Reilly led his show Monday night with why he believes liberals don't want Bowe Bergdahl prosecuted: because it hurts President Obama.

And for the record, I am a liberal, and if they have the evidence I think Bergdahl should be prosecuted, and I will go one step further, if he is convicted I think they should take his military benefits away from him. So not all liberals are against the prosecution, as O'Reilly claims.

O'Reilly said, "The liberal media knows that President Obama's foreign policy is a catastrophe. If Bowe Bergdahl is put on trial, it will be an acute embarrassment for the president."

Which is total garbage, so what if Bergdahl is prosecuted, I do not think it will hurt Obama at all.

O'Reilly then brought on Charles Krauthammer to discuss the case, and, to O'Reilly's surprise, Krauthammer actually defended the trade of five Taliban commanders from Gitmo for a deserter.

He said so last year, but O'Reilly probably didn't know because Krauthammer really surprised him Monday night.

Krauthammer argued that while he would have made the deal, he would have done so while publicly expressing regret and calling it a terrible day for the United States because of the unpleasant deal that had to be made. O'Reilly said, "You're desperately wrong on this."

Krauthammer pointed out how Americans might die at the hands of the released detainees, but he said the U.S. always makes trades with the understanding that there's a price to pay. We do it, he said, to show every single servicemember that we have their backs, even if they desert.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: