Idiot Paul Ryan Still Thinks Republicans Can Stop Obamacare
By: Steve - June 30, 2015 - 11:00am
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a new moment of Republican failure when he was asked on CBS's Face The Nation what Republicans can do realistically to stop Obamacare.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has been a consistent critic of the Affordable Care Act. And he joins us now from Janesville, Wisconsin. Mr. Ryan, is the president right? He says Obamacare is now the law of the land, and that’s that.
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I don’t agree with that, John. I think this law is going to collapse under its own weight.
I'm as motivated as ever before to repeal and replace this law, and that's what we're working on. What I really worry about, John, with this ruling is the grave injustice it does to the rule of law. I mean, so much for calling balls and strikes. I think Justice Roberts is now counting foul balls as home runs.
And, look, I think that they have done a great disservice to the country, because they're rewriting laws at the bench. We had three constructionists on the court, when we should have had five. And, so, yes, I'm very shocked at this ruling, but it does not deter us from actually delivering on what we really want, which is affordable care for everybody, and let people choose what they want to buy.
DICKERSON: But, as a practical matter, you're going to work against it, but what can you do now?
RYAN: Well, as a practical matter, it means we need to win the 2016 election, and with a Republican president in 2017 replace this law with one that actually works, one that people actually like.
Notice the pause, stumble, and well before Ryan began his non-answer to the question. Paul Ryan's unspoken answer was that Republicans can't do anything to stop Obamacare while President Obama is in office. Republicans have to hope that they win the presidential election to fulfill their dream of taking access to healthcare away from millions of Americans.
During the interview, Ryan later repeated the meaningless gibberish that Republicans are working on their own health care plan that will replace Obamacare, but he debunked his own talking point one week ago when he admitted that Republicans have no plan of their own that can replace Obamacare.
A long time ago John Boehner put Paul Ryan in charge of coming up with the Republican plan that will replace Obamacare, and since that time, the Congressman has done nothing but put his foot in his mouth when asked where is the Republican plan.
Rep. Ryan never answered the question because there is nothing that Republicans can do. Obama's victory in the Supreme Court was crushing. The Affordable Care Act is growing in popularity by the month, and with President Obama planning to push to enroll even more Americans, Republicans are completely screwed.
More Liberal O'Reilly Lies Debunked
By: Steve - June 30, 2015 - 10:00am
Here is something you will never see reported on the Factor, or Fox News, because it proves they are lying to you about Democratic economic policies.
An annual CNBC scorecard that rates each state on 60 measures of competitiveness finds that the Democratic run Minnesota is the best state in the country for business in 2015.
The same study found that while Republican-controlled states like Kansas and Arizona experienced sharp declines in their business competitiveness, Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton's economic miracle has turned his state into the nation's best state for businesses.
When Mark Dayton took office in 2011 he inherited a 6.2 billion dollar deficit from his Republican predecessor, Tim Pawlenty. Four years later, after passing a huge tax increase on wealthy Minnesotans, the state now has over a 2 billion dollar surplus, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.
Dayton's Minnesota is the antithesis of Sam Brownback's failed supply-side experiment in Kansas and Scott Walker's union busting disaster in Wisconsin.
While the CNBC study acknowledged that Minnesota's business tax rates were relatively high, they found that other factors like a strong education system and a good quality of life, offset high taxes in making the state more business-friendly than many other states with lower corporate tax rates.
In discussing the scorecard, even CNBC's conservative analysts credited Mark Dayton for Minnesota's success even though they acknowledged that his approach was not what economists or corporate leaders usually label business-friendly policies. The article reads in part:
But Minnesota doesn't just stumble into the top spot by accident. The state's path to the top is marked by a carefully crafted strategy by Gov. Mark Dayton, the first Democrat to hold the office in two decades. The hallmark of his plan is something most governors seeking to win the hearts of business would never dream of: a big tax increase.The tax increase on the wealthy worked. By increasing the state's revenue and putting more money in the pockets of ordinary Minnesotans, Dayton's economic plan spurred economic growth and reduced unemployment. The healthy economy that came about in the wake of those tax increases not only benefited workers, it also in turn proved good for business.
At some point supply-side loyalists will have to stop ignoring Minnesota's economic success, and come to terms with the fact that the best place to do business in America isn't where the taxes on the rich have been cut , but rather where they have been raised.
Minnesota is a shining example of how Democratic policies can help everyone prosper. Now if only the rest of America would start paying attention, instead of continuing to be hoodwinked by the empty promises of the GOP's trickle down fantasies, that more often than not, bring about economic failure.
The Facts About Bill O'Reilly And Gay Marriage
By: Steve - June 29, 2015 - 11:00am
On November 18, 2003, Bill O'Reilly dedicated the "Talking Points Memo" portion of his Fox News show to criticizing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which had just made a historic ruling determining that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
So in reality, O'Reilly is just like every other right-wing stooge that is opposed to gay marriage. People like him claim they do not care, and claim they support freedowm and the constitution, then they try to tell gay people they can not get married, and tell women they can not have an abortion.
They are religious pro-life hypocrites, and that is a fact.
O'Reilly claimed that while he personally "couldn't care less about gay marriage, if judges continued to "impose their views on everybody else ... the core values of this country will be changed dramatically:
O'REILLY: Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage. If Tommy and Vinny or Joanie and Samantha want to get married, I don't see it as a threat to me or anybody else. But according to a poll by the Pew Research Center, only 32 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. And the will of the people must be taken into account here.Right there is proof that O'Reilly lets his right-wing bias and his religious views cloud his thinking and his positions on the issues. He says marriage is not a right, and he is wrong, because the constitution says everyone is equal and they have equal rights, so if you block gays from marriage you are violating their constitutional rights, which is what the court ruled.
It took 12 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision is the culmination of a culture war saga that saw marriage equality evolve from a controversial thought experiment into a popularly-supported civil rights struggle.
That evolution was reflected in nearly all facets of the American public. As public opinion on same-sex relationships and homosexuality shifted, so too did media depictions of the LGBT community, both mirroring and reinforcing the normalization of same-sex relationships in the public's imagination.
In popular culture and mainstream news reporting, the fight for same-sex marriage has increasingly been presented as the story of a marginalized group fighting for civil rights and equal treatment, much to the dismay of anti-LGBT conservatives.
But while most major media outlets kept pace with the public's evolution on same-sex marriage, O'Reilly and Fox News held out, popularizing conservatives most dire warnings about marriage equality. As public support for marriage equality grew, the network shifted its focus - largely bowing out of debates over same-sex marriage in order to gin up right-wing fears about the threat that LGBT equality might soon pose to religious liberty and individual freedoms.
Though he claimed he "couldn't care less" about the issue, O'Reilly -- Fox News most influential television personality -- has been the network's loudest voice against same-sex marriage, bolstering his "culture warrior" credentials by peddling bogus horror stories about the dangers of marriage equality.
In the years following the Massachusetts decision, O'Reilly claimed that same-sex marriage would cause a decline in marriage rates, clog the court system, possibly lead to people marrying goats, ducks, and dolphins, and negatively impact the children of same-sex couples.
To O'Reilly, the push for same-sex marriage was part of a broader secularist plot to marginalize Christianity and abolish the institution of marriage altogether.
On his radio show in 2005, O'Reilly argued that the Founding Fathers hadn't addressed gay marriage in the Constitution, Because back then, if you were gay, they hung you:
O'REILLY: You know, the Founding Fathers didn't write anything into the Constitution about gay marriage. Because back then, if you were gay, they hung you. So -- you couldn't get married because they put you in the rack.Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the founding Fathers had no problem with slavery either, that did not mean it was still ok to own slaves, and now we do not allow slavery, so that argument you made is weak and pathetic.
In late 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8, dealing a major blow to conservatives who had fought tooth-and-nail to mobilize religious opposition to same-sex marriage in a traditionally liberal state.
Fox News contributor Liz Trotta decried the media's positive coverage of the decision, suggesting that Walker had a "vested interest" in striking down the ban because he is gay - a sentiment echoed elsewhere on Fox News.
O'Reilly similarly decried the decision as an example of "judicial activism."
A few months later, in early 2011, the Obama administration's Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. The announcement triggered an apoplectic reaction from Fox News, led by Megyn Kelly, who invited NOM's Gallagher to condemn the Obama administration and push falsehoods about what the announcement would mean.
Mike Huckabee, then the host of his own Fox News show, argued that marriage equality posed a threat to "stable society."
Then New York made history by becoming the largest state in the country to recognize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote, more than doubling the number of people living in marriage equality states. It was a devastating loss for anti-gay conservative groups, who poured millions of dollars into unsuccessfully pressuring a handful of moderate Republican lawmakers to oppose same-sex marriage.
Rather than evolve with the American public in its treatment of same-sex couples and the LGBT community, Fox News has just tinkered with its messaging strategy, occasionally paying lip service to the idea of same-sex marriage while drumming up a "religious persecution" narrative that's served to seriously undercut the advancement of substantive LGBT equality.
It's a smart pivot for a network that's always smudged the line between real journalism and right-wing propaganda. And after Obergefell, Fox's attempts to depict the LGBT community as sore winners will likely be even more prevalent.
Many years have passed since O'Reilly first turned his attention to the looming specter of same-sex marriage, but Fox News role as a bulwark against the advancement of LGBT equality remains largely unchanged.
In other words, O'Reilly was opposed to gay marriage then, and he is today too, he just lies about it sometimes, depending on what the polling on the issue shows, and depending on who the guest is at the time. I would bet my life on it that in private O'Reilly slams the gays and the blacks, and wishes we could go back to the early days when whites had total power and the gays were in the closet.
Jon Stewart Slams Dishonest Confederate Flag Supporters
By: Steve - June 29, 2015 - 10:00am
Last week Jon Stewart had some choice words for those who continue to defend the Confederate flag, essentially accusing them of trying to downplay racism.
Which is what Bill O'Reilly did, he defended the flag supporters by saying their is a history of states rights and bravery represented in the flag, which is bull and he knows it.
Stewart pointed out that many of its defenders claim the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery. He also went after those who claim it's about Southern pride and heritage, saying that their ancestors might have had other redeeming qualities, but that doesn;t negate the primary reason why the Civil War happened -- slavery.
"It'd be like saying you support flying the Nazi flag because you're proud of their robust anti-smoking agenda," Stewart said, showing a piece of Nazi-era anti-smoking propaganda. "But that wasn't really their thing."
Though The Daily Show host did point out that it’s becoming more difficult to find anyone in the mainstream who will defend the Confederate flag, using a clip of a representative from the Sons of Confederate Veterans discussing how he feels taking down the flag is a slippery slope to removing monuments and changing street names that honor members of the Confederacy.
"Let me explain to you how the slippery slope argument normally works: usually when you do the slippery slope argument, you like to end it in something bad," Stewart said. "You don't go like, 'The next thing, black children don't have to go to schools named after men who wouldn't have allowed them to learn how to read.'"
He also went on to mock Fox News contributor Todd Starnes for suggesting that the next flag that will be targeted will be the U.S. flag. Which is just insane, because the U.S. flag represents America and freedom, not slavery and racism in the south.
It's taken 150 years to get to this point -- and even still it really took one of the worst racially-motivated terrorist attacks this country has seen in a very long time to finally ignite a movement that's been long overdue. That flag should have been taken down 50 years ago, but at least they are finally doing it now.
Fox & Friends Caught Lying Again About Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - June 28, 2015 - 11:00am
Fox & Friends co-hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Steve Doocy baselessly speculated that 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would remain silent on South Carolina's Confederate flag out of deference to her husband's actions as governor of Arkansas.
However, Clinton said in a 2007 interview with the Associated Press that South Carolina should remove the flag from its statehouse grounds.
On the June 22 edition of Fox News Fox & Friends, Hasselbeck pointed out that while most of the GOP presidential field has weighed in on South Carolina's decision to continue flying the Confederate flag on its state house grounds in the wake of last week's mass shooting in a black, historically activist church in Charleston, Hillary Clinton has not yet made a statement.
She speculated that Clinton's silence may be "because Bill Clinton, her husband, signed a law honoring the Confederacy in Arkansas and about the flag's design in 1987," while he was governor of Arkansas, going on to say, "She's just in a tough spot, to have to defend her husband's position back then, right now in light of what happened in South Carolina."
However, as the Clinton campaign pointed out, Clinton unequivocally told the Associated Press in 2007 that she would "like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," saying,"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day."
And btw, Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time.
The Fox hosts also failed to note that while several of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates have made statements on the Confederate flag, none openly condemned it -- Scott Walker said the decision to fly the flag is a "state issue" and Marco Rubio said that "outsiders" should not tell South Carolina what to do.
Clinton has spoken about racism in the wake of the Charleston shooting, which claimed nine lives. Speaking on Saturday, she said, "Race remains a deep fault line in America. Millions of people of color still experience racism in their everyday lives."
Meanwhile, most of Fox News coverage of the shooting failed to take the shooter's clearly racist motivations seriously. On June 18, Doocy said it was extraordinary that the shooting would be called a hate crime. And on his radio program, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade wondered, "Is it about Christians? Is it about white-black? Is it about 'I hate South Carolina'?"
Ken Burns Has The True Facts About The Confederate Flag
By: Steve - June 27, 2015 - 11:00am
O'Reilly and his right-wing friends can spin their nonsense about the confederate flag all they want, but Ken Burns is telling you the real truth about it, something you do not get from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News.
Ken Burns, the documentarian behind PBS's acclaimed The Civil War series, blasted the myth that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism and white supremacy during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe.
"I think what happens is that we build up over time the sense of an excuse about why it came," Burns said. "If you read … South Carolina's articles of secession in November -- after Lincoln's election of 1860 -- they don't mention states rights at all, and they also don't mention nullification. But they mention slavery over and over again."
He later added, "Those (Confederate) flags came in after Brown v. Board of Education. This is not about heritage. This is about resistance to civil rights."
Burns is demonstrating how the Confederate flag has always been a symbol against efforts by black Americans to gain equal rights. When South Carolina became the first state to secede after Lincoln's election, it explicitly singled out attempts to abolish slavery and grant rights to black Americans as "hostile to the South" and "destructive of its beliefs and safety."
And as Vox's Libby Nelson explained, Southerners used the flag to intimidate civil rights advocates and defend segregation. So while some dishonest right-wingers might not see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, the truth is the flag's history is mired in racism.
More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - June 27, 2015 - 10:00am
The housing market is doing great, and O'Reilly ignored it, because it makes Obama look good and it shows his economic policies are working.
Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Increase to Highest Level Since 2009
Previously owned U.S. homes sold in May at the fastest pace since November 2009, driven by first-time buyers and indicating budding momentum in the residential real estate market.
Closings on existing properties, which usually occur a month or two after a contract is signed, rose 5.1 percent to a 5.35 million annualized rate, the National Association of Realtors reported Monday in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for a 5.26 million pace. The share of first-time buyers matched the highest level since September 2012.
Employment gains, rising incomes and still-cheap borrowing costs are combining to propel sales after a period of uneven demand from late 2014 through early this year. The prospect of higher interest rates as the Federal Reserve considers tighter monetary policy may be encouraging more Americans to take the homeownership plunge.
"Incomes are doing better and more people are working," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. Stanley correctly forecast May sales. "I would imagine we'll continue to see better demand from first-time buyers."
O'Reilly ignores this news because he is a right-wing hack who hates Obama, he claims Obama is a failure and the economy is in chaos, even though all the numbers prove him wrong, he still continues to lie about it because he can not admit he was wrong about Obama.
Supreme Court Rules State Bans On Same-Sex Marriage Are Unconstitutional
By: Steve - June 26, 2015 - 11:30am
And the right-wingers of course freaked out. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Fox's MacCallum: "What's To Prevent" Three People From Getting Married Now?
Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: "Polygamy, Here We Come!"
HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey: Gay Marriage Decision Will Lead To "Challenges To Polygamy Bans."
Which is nonsense, because it is illegal to marry more than one person, or a dog, etc. so all that talk is pure right-wing garbage, and nothing will change, except gay people can now legally get married and in a year it will be a non-issue.
More insanity from the right-wing loons:
Breitbart.com's Nolte: Decision "Emboldens Gaystapo To Target ... Your Church" And Leaves "No Legal Argument Against Polygamy."
Fox's Starnes: "If You Think The Cultural Purge Over Southern Traditions Was Egregious -- Wait Until You See What They Do To Christians In America."
Mark Levin: "The Supreme Court Is Officially Nuts."
Powerline's John Hinderaker: "We Do Not Live In A Democracy."
Fox's Stuart Varney Suggests Decision Could Lead To Polygamy:
Fox's Erick Erickson: Ruling "Has Much To Do With The Semblance Of Normalcy. Those Who See Homosexuality As A Sin Must, Necessarily, Be Driven From The Town Square."
And that's not all, it goes on and on forever, every right-winger in America has gone crazy over this ruling, even though it was the correct ruling, and we all know it.
Desperate Ben Carson Finally Admits The Truth About Church Shooting
By: Steve - June 26, 2015 - 11:00am
I say desperate because his campaign is so bad he has to say and do something to try and get someone to support him, especially after all his top staffers quit on him.
Ben Carson Abandons Conservative Talking Points By Calling Racism Racism
In an op-ed piece that appeared in Monday's edition of USA Today, retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson pulled no punches in calling the South Carolina church massacre a racist act.
In the opinion piece, Carson implicitly criticized most of the other candidates in the Republican field for trying to downplay the racial component of the church shooting spree. Carson wrote:
Not everything is about race in this country. But when it is about race, then it just is. So when a guy who has been depicted wearing a jacket featuring an apartheid-era Rhodesian flag walks into a historic black church and guns down nine African-American worshipers at a Bible study meeting, common sense leads one to believe his motivations are based in racism.It is hardly radical to declare the South Carolina shooter a racist, but conservative pundits and politicians have found it difficult to do just that. Simply by speaking the truth, Carson appears willing to alienate the segment of his party that wants to pretend racism no longer exists in the United States.
That wing includes presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz, who have consistently tried to downplay the significance of race, even where racism is obvious.
At least this time, instead of parroting GOP talking points, Carson decided to stake out his own position. It remains to be seen whether his honesty becomes an asset or a liability in the Republican presidential primaries.
His recognition of the racial motivation behind the Charleston murders could alienate part of his original Tea Party base, but it also could help him with GOP moderates and conservatives who view his willingness to stick his neck out and say something other Republicans are too timid to say as a point in his favor.
Carson's willingness to call racism what it is, combined with 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's calls for taking down the confederate flag in South Carolina, point to a growing rift in the GOP base. That divide between the racist apologists and racism deniers on one side, and principled conservatives who acknowledge America still has work to do on race relations, is one that will play out in the 2016 Republican primaries.
Republican voters have an opportunity to decide whether they wish to remain a viable political party that can address complex issues, or whether they want to travel down the narrow bigoted path of becoming a White Nationalist party that is unwilling to face any inconvenient truths about race in America.
Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Hypocrisy On Politicizing Charleston Shooting
By: Steve - June 26, 2015 - 10:00am
Jon Stewart opened his show this Monday by taking on the hypocrites over at Faux "news" for their bitching that President Obama and the left have supposedly "politicized" the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina this week and that it's of course, "too early" to have a discussion about gun control, or racism, or whatever else they'd prefer we not talk about because they don't want to offend their racist audience.
After showing a montage of the talking heads over there, ending with Sean Hannity saying this:
HANNITY: It's almost like a sickness that, you know, a tragedy happens, let's see how we can advance our narrative.
Stewart let him have it.
STEWART: Yes. It's a sickness. This rush to use tragedy to advance... your narrative. Combine that with an inability for self-examination, an almost comical degree of self-exculpatory rhetoric, flag pins, little bit of leg, and a complete immunity to irony -- you've got yourself a full blown case of Fox-abetes.
You know, they're amazing. They are amazing at what they do. Remind me of this past December when two New York City cops were tragically killed during a time when people were protesting police shootings of unarmed black men. Talk to me about the restraint Fox used in not advancing their narrative.
Then we have the Fox idiots, claiming Mayor Bill de Blasio has blood on his hands and attacking President Obama and those on the left for supposedly being the ones making racial tensions worse in New York.
As Stewart said, despite the pleas from the likes of Fox not to do anything about what happened, and the public is rising up and demanding that the Confederate flag be removed from the grounds of the state capitol.
After slamming the legislators in South Carolina who passed a law requiring that it takes 2/3 of them to vote to get the flag removed and the fact that it's the absolute very least that should be done, Stewart hammered them for the fact that the flag was one of the least of their troubles.
STEWART: In Charleston, Emanuel AME Church is on Calhoun St., named for former Vice President John C. Calhoun. Let's call him the racist Christopher Lloyd. He was 19th century America's foremost defender of slavery, the guy who said slavery wasn't a necessary evil, but a positive good.
That's the address that this church has to have on their letterhead. Take a short walk down the street, you're at the Daughters of the Confederacy's Confederate Museum. The Rebel uniforms are venerated like the Shroud of Turin.
I touched General Lee's tunic. It cured my shingles.
You can't spit your tabacci in Charleston without hitting a public monument to the glorious days of slavery, because in the context of Charleston's extensive Confederate porn industry, the flag is just the money shot.
That town is like Confederate Epcot.
Stewart followed up with some very funny and irreverent perspective from his correspondents, Jordon Klepper and Jessica Williams, with Klepper doing his best schtick as the tone deaf white guy who ignores any complaints he hears from black people like Williams, and Williams turning to her new friend, "helper whitey" after being fed up with the likes of Klepper.
Here is the video:
Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Tax Credits For All Americans
By: Steve - June 25, 2015 - 11:40am
On June 25, the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Obama Affordable Care Act that allows for tax credits to aid millions of Americans who obtained health insurance through the federal exchanges, as opposed to those operated by their state.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama's health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance. And the vote was not even close, it came down 6 to 3.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 6-to-3 decision. The court's three most conservative members -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- dissented.
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama's signature legislative achievement. The law created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans.
And btw, all the right-wing stooges (including O'Reilly) predicted the Supreme Court would throw that provision out, and as usual, they were all wrong.
Then of course all the right-wing nuts flipped out.
Responding to the health care decision on Fox News America's Newsroom, network contributor and former Bush administration advisor Karl Rove deemed it to be "an act of judicial activism" from the Supreme Court designed to "protect the Affordable Care Act."
With today's Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all. (National Review Online)
Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Chief Justice John Roberts had "resorted to a nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute," going on: "Roberts will undermine his own credibility as a fair-minded jurist, because he has reached to bizarre and odd contortions in order to save this statute twice."
After the decision was released, the Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor tweeted that the "scumbag" Chief Justice Roberts -- appointed by George W. Bush -- was "an awful pick" for the court.
And it goes on and on, all the right-wing stoogs hated the ruling. Even though this ruling saved health care for 8 million Americans, they do not give a damn, they just wanted the court to rule against Obama to make him look bad for political reasons. And btw folks, even if the court had thrown it out, Congress was going to pass a fix for it, so the Republicans would have lost either way. Obamacare is here to stay and it is working great, they just refuse to admit it.
Larry Wilmore Blasts Bill O'Reilly For Coverage Of Race In America
By: Steve - June 25, 2015 - 11:30am
Wilmore: Progress On Race Is "One Step Forward, Two Bill O'Reillys Back"
Jon Stewart Slams Fox News For Their Ignorance About Racism
By: Steve - June 25, 2015 - 11:00am
It sure is no secret that Fox News has built a reputation for not only helping fuel racism, but on many levels either downplaying or flat-out denying that racism is still even an issue, especially Bill O'Reilly who claims racism is gone. And I can not count how many times I had a conservative tell me that racism is no longer an issue because we elected our first black president.
Now let me clear something up, the country did not elect the first black president, liberals, Independents, and Democrats elected our first black president. The Conservatives and the Republicans all voted against Obama, and a lot of them voted against him simply because he is black.
When it comes to conservatives and the Republican party as it relates to electing African-Americans, there are exactly three (out of 299 total Republicans) representing the GOP in Congress. In other words, about one percent of the Republicans in Congress are African-American.
And here's another good fact: Republicans had twice as many African-Americans serving in Congress in 1871 (six) as they do now.
So, no, the fact that liberals elected our first black president does not mean racism is no longer an issue, especially considering the amount of racism that's been thrown his way since being elected. And as most of us know, one of the driving forces behind a lot of that racism has been the conservative media, in particular Fox News.
And just like they normally do, some over on the conservative entertainment network were quick to try to downplay the racism element in the horrific shooting that left nine African-Americans dead in Charleston, South Carolina. Needless to say, Jon Stewart did what he has often done and absolutely hammered Fox News ignorance.
He addressed the accusation by the network that liberals were suffering from a sickness by trying to politicize the shooting. "Yes. It's a sickness, this rush to use tragedy to advance your narrative," Stewart said. "Combine that with an inability for self-examination, an almost comical degree of self-exculpatory rhetoric, flag pins, a little bit of leg, and a complete immunity to irony, you've got yourself a full-blown case of Foxabetes."
The best part of the segment came when Stewart addressed the racist culture of Charleston, South Carolina. "You can't spit your tobacky in Charleston without hitting a public monument to the glorious days of slavery," he said.
"Because in the context of Charleston's extensive Confederate porn industry, the flag is just the money shot. That town is like Confederate Epcot."
The fact that for many down there the Confederacy is looked upon with respect and honor as opposed to shame and embarrassment, which is what we should all feel about the largest treasonous uprising in our nation's history.
It's just a real shame it took the murder of nine innocent lives last Wednesday before some finally realized that it’s time we stop honoring one of the most shameful periods of American history.
Bill O'Reilly Flips Out Over Question About Racism
By: Steve - June 25, 2015 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly got into a heated debate Tuesday with a regular guest on his show. O'Reilly accused Kirsten Powers and liberals of being unfair by presenting to the public their impression of the U.S. as a nation filled with racism and bigotry.
O'Reilly had Powers and Monica Crowley on his show, and the topic being discussed was racism, specifically whether it is rampant in America or limited to a small fraction of the population.
Powers asserted that there are indeed a lot of people living in the U.S. who are in fact racist. And she is exactly right, but O'Reilly will not admit it, because he is a right-wing idiot who does not admit to reality.
O'Reilly shot back, saying this: "I have to wonder why you can't see what is happening, because most Americans are not racist."
And I agree with you O'Reilly, most Americans are not racist, nobody is saying they are. Powers also agrees with you, she is not saying most Americans are racist, she is just saying the truth, the facts, that a lot of people in America are racist.
In an attempt to prove a point, Powers asked O'Reilly: "So, how many black friends do you have?"
O'Reilly refused to answer her question, in fact, he totally ignored the very fact that she said anything. Powers persisted and asked the question several more times before O'Reilly finally had enough, slamming his hand on his desk and saying: "If you think most Americans are racist, I'm ashamed of you. I'm ashamed of you."
Crowley then said that "racism has been limited to the lunatic fringe of the country."
Which is a lie, and she knows it. Because many mainstream Republicans are still racists, I even know some of them myself, and I see it all the time on Republicans message boards I monitor, racism is everywhere on some of those right-wing discussion boards, at least until the moderators delete it. In fact, it's why you see so many messages in theads saying comment # whatever removed by moderator, they are almost always racist postings.
O'Reilly instigated the argument at the beginning of the segment by asking Powers where he was going wrong. She told him that she did feel racism is a serious issue in this country and could not understand why the comment offended O'Reilly so much.
But she never once said most of Americans are racist, those were claims made by O'Reilly, that I have not heard anyone say.
O'Reilly admitted that every country in the world has racist elements in it. But Powers refused to see the relevance. O'Reilly then pointed out that the U.S. does not have a system in which racism is acceptable at all.
It may not be acceptable, but it is there and there is a lot of it, O'Reilly just refuses to admit it, then he distorts the issue and gets mad at something nobody is saying.
O'Reilly stood his ground by saying that "what is being sold is this idea that we are as a society, are racist, white supremacy, and white privilege. That's what's being sold…the world is being told by anti-American haters that we are a rank, racist society, and that is a lie."
Which is another lie, and nobody is saying that. To begin with, the people calling out the racists are not anti-American, they love America, they just want to expose the racism to try and help get rid of it. If we keep ignoring it and do not expose it, the country will never get rid of racism.
Now here is where O'Reilly really goes wrong, to begin with, he never did answer the question, because you can bet the farm he does not have any black friends, and most Republicans do not either.
Second, nobody is saying America is a racist nation, what they are saying is that we still have a lot of racists in the country and that racism is still a big problem. So O'Reilly is arguing against a statement nobody is making, nobody is saying AMERICA is a racist nation.
O'Reilly will not even admit there are a lot of racists still alive, so he is ignoring the problem and getting mad when people call out the racists.
O'Reilly Promotes Ridiculous Rand Paul Flat Tax Plan
By: Steve - June 24, 2015 - 11:00am
Fact: The only people that benefit from a flat tax are the wealthy, no matter how Paul and O'Reilly spin and lie about it, that is a fact.
Monday night Bill O'Reilly was on to promote Rand Paul's flat tax nonsense to "the so-called folks." Who are those folks, you ask? Well, they're the ones who watch idiots like O'Reilly lie to them and believe he's telling the truth.
Rand Paul is the most disliked Republican candidate at Fox, but even they have found something to hawk to their "folks:"
O'REILLY: According to most polls, Senator Paul is slipping a bit in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. That's mainly because his foreign policy of quasi-isolation is controversial in the age of terrorism. So now the senator is putting forth a flat-tax proposal that has some very attractive components to it.
It would shake down this way:
Paul's plan would mandate a 14-and-a-half percent income tax rate applied to all workers earning more than $50,000 a year.
All profitable businesses would also be taxed at that rate, along with capital gains interest on savings and other revenue the feds want a piece of. Senator Paul would do away with most personal deductions, only mortgage and charitable contributions could be written off.
Business could write off purchases of parts and office equipment … things like that. Overall Senator Paul's flat-tax proposal is friendly to the American worker.
WOW! What a massive load of old right-wing rich guy garbage.
An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in 2011 says just the opposite. Right now the federal tax rate is generally about 9.6 percent for working people. Raising and flattening it doesn't help workers, it makes it more regressive.
A flatter tax system may sound great, but in reality, it would entail a massive shift in tax burdens from wealthy households to those who are less affluent.
But facts don't matter to O'Dummy, even when they come up and slap him in the face. Because the fact is that a flat tax such as the one Rand Paul proposes would do nothing for "the folks," and it would also kill Social Security and Medicare, which is a conservative dream.
The most controversial part of Paul's flat tax is that he wants to do away with the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.
Right now most American workers pay almost 8% toward those entitlements. Paul says you wouldn't pay anything and the revenue would be made up by American companies -- their tax contributions would first go to funding FICA and Medicare.
I call BS on that, and so should everyone else. O'Reilly and Rand Paul do not give a rat's ass about Social Security or Medicare other than as a target on their wall with a big bulls-eye in the middle of it.
O'Dummy even admits that 14.5 percent won't do the job, and the payroll tax would have to die too.
O'REILLY: If you are a poor American, Senator Paul would keep the earned income tax credit so funds would continue to be paid to low earners.
Now Talking Points does not believe the numbers add up. You could do a flat tax, but it would have to be around 19%, not 14-and-a-half. And you would have to keep some kind of payroll tax. You could drop it; 5% would be the very minimum.
However, as everyone knows, the American tax system is broken. The IRS is not a reliable organization to say the least, and Senator Paul's proposal separates him from most of the other candidates because he is putting forth something concrete.
The next presidential election will be won by the person who can convince most voters that he or she will help their financial security. The Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, are throwing in with the tax the rich and business mantra to the fullest extent.
So it's more of the same that President Obama gave us. Talking Points believes America needs a flat tax. The question, will the folks rally around it?
No, IDIOT. "The folks" will not rally around it because it's a turd sandwich for everyone but people like Bill O'Reilly, who would love to not have to pay the pittance in tax on his megabucks he pays every year.
And btw, O'Dummy forgot to mention that part to "the folks." I'm sure he just forgot, yeah right.
The Truth About The Flat Tax O'Reilly Ignores
By: Steve - June 24, 2015 - 10:00am
Think about this, I mean seriously, think about this. Every single person who supports or promotes a flat tax is wealthy.
And now, here are some facts about a flat tax.
The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich.
The details of flat-tax proposals vary, of course. But all of them end up benefitting the rich more than the poor for one simple reason: Today’s tax code is still at least moderately progressive. The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.
Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all -- a fact that sends many conservatives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes.
Flat-taxers pretend a flat tax is good public policy, for two reasons.
First, they say, it would simplify paying taxes. Baloney. Flat-tax proposals don’t eliminate popular deductions.
Second, they say a flat tax is fairer than the current system because, a flat tax "treats everyone the same."
The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It's organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).
For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income (the exact amount depends on whether the person is married and eligible for tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit of the Family Tax Credit.)
People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket -- not on their entire incomes.
Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.
Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.
Conservatives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They'd rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.
The real problem is the top brackets are set too low relative to where the money is. The top-most bracket starts at $375,000 a year. People with incomes higher than that pay 35 percent -- again, only on that portion of their incomes exceeding $375,000.
This is insane. It means a professional who's making, $380,000 a year pays the same income-tax rate as a super-wealthy person who is pulling in $2 billion or $20 billion.
Our current flat tax at the top is treating the nation's professional class exactly the same as it treats super-rich plutocrats. My doctor pays the same tax rate as Steve Forbes.
Actually, it's worse than that because the plutocrats get most of their income in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. That's why America's 400 richest people -- who earned an average of $300 million last year, and who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together -- now pay at a 17 percent rate (according to the IRS).
Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax -- starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.
Notice that O'Reilly does not tell you any of this, he ignores it all and simply says the Rand Paul flat tax plan (on average) is good for the American worker. Which is just nothing but lies and pure right-wing propaganda, coming from a Republican rich guy, think about that.
Note To Bill O'Reilly: GOP Governor To Remove Confederate Flag
By: Steve - June 23, 2015 - 11:00am
In a hastily announced press conference Monday, South Carolina's Governor Nikki Haley (R) called on her state to remove the Confederate flag that has long flown outside the capitol building on the statehouse grounds.
"Today we are here in a moment of unity in our state without ill will to say it's time to move the flag from the capitol grounds," Haley said during the press conference, noting that while the act would not bring back those killed last week, it was necessary to prevent the symbol from causing further pain.
Governor Haley added that she will use her power as governor to call an extraordinary special session of the state legislature if they refuse to act. "The time for action is coming soon," she said. "This is South Carolina's historic moment."
Standing by her side at the announcement were South Carolina's senators, Lindsey Graham (R) and Tim Scott (R). Graham's support for Haley's remarks marked a change of tone from how he approached the issue just three days ago. In an interview with CNN on Friday, he asserted that the Confederate flag is "part of who we are," although he also said that revisiting that decision "would be fine with me."
Graham issued a statement shortly after the press conference Monday, saying "I am urging that the Confederate Battle Flag be removed from statehouse grounds to an appropriate location."
Graham became the first Republican presidential candidate to call for the flag to be taken down, but minutes after the announcement, Ohio Governor and likely candidate John Kasich (R) sent out his own statement calling for the removal of the flag. The question has been asked of many of the contenders in recent days, with most asserting that the issue should be left up to the state.
The South Carolina politicians dramatic shift -- after decades of fiercely defending the flag -- came after revelations that it was an important symbol and inspiration for Dylann Roof, the 21 year old who murdered nine people in Charleston's historic Emanuel A.M.E. Church last week.
Legislators are currently in a session to pass the state's budget, and could take up and debate a bill about the flag. Contrary to reports that a two-thirds supermajority vote in the state legislature would be needed to remove the flag, it would only take a simple majority.
Walmart First Store To Remove All Confederate Flag Merchandise
By: Steve - June 23, 2015 - 11:00am
Walmart is leading the nation by announcing it will remove all Confederate flag merchandise from its stores, according to CNN.
CNN politics reporter MJ Lee tweeted the statement from Walmart spokesman Brian Nick:
"We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the confederate flag from our assortment -- whether in our stores or on our web site. We have a process in place to help lead us to the right decisions when it comes to the merchandise we sell. Still, at times, items make their way into our assortment improperly -- this is one of those instances."
CNN reached out to Amazon & eBay, which MJ Lee says both sell various forms of Confederate flag merchandise, but they have not responded.
On CNN, Lee writes, "The announcement is the latest indication that the flag, a symbol of the slave-holding South, has become toxic in the aftermath of a shooting last week at a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina."
This is an interesting move by a company that is desperately trying to revamp its public image. First they raised wages, and now they are taking a lead on a moral and ethical issue that is the cause of deep pain for many in this country.
This is a big win for the anti-hate side, because Walmart is the world's largest retailer, with over 11,100 stores in 27 countries. With Walmart removing merchandise with the Confederate flag on it, the days of mass public denial and pretending it is not a hate symbol are coming to an end.
As Expected Biased Hack O'Reilly Defends Use Of The Confederate Flag
By: Steve - June 23, 2015 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly: Flag "Represents, To Some, Bravery In The Civil War Because The Confederates Fought Hard"
Partial transcript from the June 22nd, 2015 O'Reilly Factor:
JUAN WILLIAMS: I just wanted to end on this note. You saw Mitt Romney say we should take that flag down.
O'REILLY: The Confederate flag.
WILLIAMS: The Confederate flag, symbol of hate. You saw people like Tim Scott, Reverend Goff, the man who spoke in the church yesterday. They talked about he wanted a race war and, in fact, somehow, this is bringing black and white people together. I think we sometimes don't celebrate when people come together.
O'REILLY: That's a positive and I just -- got to go. You say the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate and you believe that.
WILLIAMS: That's the way I feel when I see it.
O'REILLY: Okay, okay. And absolutely 100 percent legitimate. For some other people who see it in a historical context --
WILLIAMS: What's the historical context?
O'REILLY: It represents bravery.
WILLIAMS: Oh get out of town.
O'REILLY: In war.
WILLIAMS: They put it up in anger when they were trying to mass resist the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's.
O'REILLY: You know as well as I do that it represents, to some, bravery in the Civil War because the Confederates fought hard.
But that's what it represents. You're right historically, but in their minds, that's what it represents. And in your mind it represents hate. So, and everybody should know what the two sides are believing.
Let's get real, The confederate flag represents old time southern racism. The white south wanted to keep slaves and did not care about blacks, they wanted to even deny blacks any rights, and anyone who says different is lying to you, including O'Reilly.
The Confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy, and it always has. The history is clear: from the Civil War through the civil rights movement, the flag has always been about white supremacy. The only thing that has changed is how the rest of the country sees the cause it represents.
The Confederacy itself was founded to preserve slavery and promote white supremacy (see, for example, Mississippi's declaration of secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world," or the speech from the Confederacy's vice president that declared the Confederacy's cornerstone "rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition").
The KKK even waved the Confederate flag. So did the Citizens' Councils, white supremacist groups of prominent and successful people who opposed integration. White mobs at the University of Alabama also carried Confederate flags when they threw rocks at Autherine Lucy, the university's first black student, before the university decided to expel her rather than protect her.
The only people who think it represents honor and bravery and right-wing fools who deny racism and will not admit the truth, now even most Republicans want to get rid of it because they know the truth and it makes them look bad.
Church Shooter Manifesto Reveals Hate Group Helped Radicalize Him
By: Steve - June 22, 2015 - 11:00am
And of course O'Reilly and Fox have totally ignored this story, while denying he is a racist.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
A manifesto, purportedly penned by Dylann Storm Roof, the man charged with murdering nine people at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C., has surfaced online. The website contains numerous photos of Roof as well as a 2,000 word manifesto.
The website is called "The Last Rhodesian" -- the Rhodesian flag was one of the patches Roof had on his jacket in his Facebook profile photo. Roof's manifesto reveals much of his motivations for committing his heinous act. In it, he specifically cites the website of the white nationalist hate group Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) as his gateway into the radical right.
The CCC is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South.
Today, the CCC dedicates itself to educating whites on what it sees as an epidemic of black on white crime in the United States. The CCC website has been a touchstone for the radical right to get educated on this issue -- and it appears this was the first stop for Roof on his dive down the white nationalist rabbit hole.
Roof's manifesto reads, "The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words "black on White crime" into Google, and I have never been the same since that day."
"The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?"
The CCC is very active in Roof's home state of South Carolina. In fact, the CCC webmaster, white nationalist Kyle Rogers, is based in the state. Rogers is the mastermind behind the CCC's push to bring attention to black on white crime -- writing article after article on the CCC website exposing what he calls black on white hate crimes.
This brand of racist opportunism, exemplified by Rogers's coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, is a staple of Rogers and the CCC's media plan. On Feb. 6, 2012, in the midst of the site's coverage of the shooting, the CCC's website topped 170,000 unique visits in a single day. Such successes have emboldened Rogers and the CCC's web team, resulting in similar coverage following the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the social unrest that followed. It seems the CCC media strategy was successful in recruiting Roof into the radical right.
When he isn't writing about black on white crime, Rogers manages a flag store, Patriotic-Flags.com, which you can visit by clicking an ad on the CCC website. Rogers store sells the flag of the government of Rhodesia, the same flag sewn on the jacket worn by Roof in his Facebook profile.
Before Root's manifest was discovered, Rogers was quick to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center for our reporting on the Roof shooting. Rogers claimed "there is no evidence whatsoever" of Roof being radicalized online. If authorities determine that Roof's manifesto is authentic, Rogers words may well come back to haunt him.
UPDATE: Charleston law enforcement authorities have confirmed that the website containing Dylann Storm Roof's manifesto and photos was registered and run by Roof.
Conservatives Slam Fox For Putting (Clown) Trump In Their Debates
By: Steve - June 22, 2015 - 10:00am
Donald Trump's presidential announcement and likely involvement in the Republican Party's presidential debate on Fox has prompted criticism of the network's debate criteria, which would prioritize Trump over elected officials.
Trump announced that he would be a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, saying that "the American dream is dead" and that he would "build a great wall" on the southern border and "have Mexico pay" for it.
Fox News announced that its scheduled August 6th presidential debate would include candidates "in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls." Current polling indicates that Trump would make the cut of the top 10.
RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Trump with 3.6% support, higher than figures like Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, and Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Fox figures have begun promoting the debate as more important to the nomination process than the traditional electoral process in Iowa and New Hampshire. Candidates like Fiorina are pushing their supporters to donate to her campaign so that she can raise her visibility and qualify for inclusion in the debate.
Then Republicans began to push back on the criteria. A report from the New York Times said "many Republicans" were worried about Trump's likely inclusion because it would "squeeze out" more legitimate candidates. So a coalition of prominent New Hampshire Republicans asked the network to reconsider the criteria for the debate. In response, Fox announced that it would hold a separate debate for those candidates on the second tier of the race.
As Bloomberg reported, Trump appearing in the debates "is a nightmare scenario for the Republican establishment, which risks having its presidential field look more like a circus of a reality TV show rather than a real Presidential debate."
The conservative Club for Growth PAC issued a press release calling for Trump's exclusion from the debate. They described him as "not a serious Republican candidate," adding that "it would also be unfortunate if he takes away a spot at even one Republican debate."
Tom Rath, a Republican and former attorney general of New Hampshire, told the Wall Street Journal that excluding governors and senators -- some of them currently in office -- from the debate in exchange for Trump "doesn't make sense to me."
Washington Post conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin argued that "it would be wise to keep Trump off the debates," and complained that "Fox News's criteria of using national polls to gain entry into the debates was a flawed mechanism from the start," because it "rewards celebrity candidates."
She advocated for using state polling since it would make it "harder for Trump and other candidates to qualify."
As it has often been documented, in recent years Trump has become a regular fixture in conservative media, particularly on Fox News. Despite indulging in birther conspiracy theories about President Obama, calling climate change a "hoax," promoting a false connection between vaccines and autism, and calling for a revolution after Obama's re-election, Trump was never turned away by O'Reilly or Fox.
He was invited on multiple occasions to address the conservative CPAC conference (including one year where New Jersey governor Chris Christie was excluded from the proceedings).
Trump was among the most frequent guests on Fox News among probable presidential candidates. He appeared on the network 48 times between January 2013 and April of this year, well ahead of figures like Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush.
In May, Trump appeared on Fox for 51 minutes, ahead of all but two likely presidential candidates.
After Trump's presidential announcement, several Fox News figures heaped praise on him. Host Neil Cavuto said he would be "a force to be reckoned with," while Sean Hannity compared him to Ronald Reagan. After hosting him for a prime time interview, Bill O'Reilly said, "I'd rather have the straight talk of Donald Trump than the obfuscation of Hillary Clinton any day, at any time."
Which is just laughable, because outside of the conservative crazy world and the right-wing bubble at Fox News, Trump is seen as a fool, a clown, and a joke. Nobody I know or talk to take him serious, and nobody I can find said they would ever vote for him for anything, let alone President.
Wilmore Calls Out Fox For Denying Racial Motivation Behind Church Shooting
By: Steve - June 21, 2015 - 11:30am
The guy was clearly a racist, and yet O'Reilly and Fox deny it, proving they are biased hacks that do not report the truth.
Larry Wilmore slams them for their bias, and rightly so:
CCC Posts Article Admitting Church Shooting Was Racial
By: Steve - June 21, 2015 - 11:00am
So while Fox and the dishonest Republicans deny the church shooting was racism, the CCC is posting articles admitting it was. Good Job Fox, you have set a new low, you deny reality to defend right-wing racists.
Here is the article from the CCC website:
CofCC deeply saddened by Charleston spree killing
The perpetrator of the Charleston spree killing has been arrested. The suspect is 21 year old Dylann Storm Roof. The shooter was probably targeting blacks out of racial hatred. A victim of the shooting says that Roof expressed anger over black on white rape. However, he killed more black women than black men.
He had previously been arrested twice while engaging in extremely suspicious activity at the Columbiana Centre, a popular mall, in Columbia, SC. These arrests took place last February and April.
He was also allegedly abusing anti-depressants and other drugs. He had a pending felony drug charge for Suboxone, meth, LSD, and cocaine. The 21 year old was a lone wolf that is not believed to have ever been a member of an organization. Friends say he was never active in politics and had lots of black friends in High School.
Roof also has a Facebook page created earlier in 2015. He had over 80 Facebook friends and 25% of them are black. The media is focused on a picture uploaded May 21st that shows Roof with patches on his jacket representing the old flag of South Africa, and the old flag of Rhodesia.
It is unclear what caused Roof to go on the shooting spree. It seems that Roof's interest in racial politics started only very recently.
It is a relief that the perpetrator has been caught. However, the loss of nine lives is devastating. It could also have severe consequences in terms of race relations in the US in general, and South Carolina in particular.
The attack was similar to when ISIS bombs Shiite mosques. It is to incite the other side to retaliate and create a situation where the violence between the two sides spirals out of control.
We pray, for the sake of all Americans, that there will not be an escalation of racial tension.
Okay, so where is O'Reilly and Fox on reporting this article and other articles like this, nowhere to be found, they have totally ignored all the evidence that shows the kid was a racist.
Right-Wing Media Used Church Shooting To Lie About Guns & Obama
By: Steve - June 21, 2015 - 10:00am
Here is a perfect example of bias from Bill O'Reilly and the right-wing media, that he actually says he is not part of, which is just laughable.
The Conservative media outlets are using the mass shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina, church to push myths about guns and criticize President Obama for highlighting the need for responsible gun safety legislation.
The Washington Post reported that the Department of Justice opened a hate crime investigation of an attack on the historically black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church that left 9 dead after 21-year-old white suspect Dylann Roof "made racist comments before he started shooting inside the church" on the evening of June 17.
The Post laid out further details of the deadly events inside the Charleston, South Carolina, church that has deep roots in African-American history:
Dylann Roof sat in the back of the room for about an hour, officials said, and some people at the church encouraged him to join the discussion. Before he began firing a semiautomatic handgun, Roof said something that the officials described as hateful racial epithets.President Obama spoke about "the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel" after massacre in Charleston, saying "Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times." Obama called the shooting "particularly heartbreaking" and urged legislative action to prevent further violence:
OBAMA: We don't have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.And then of course O'Reilly and all his insane right-wing friends flipped out and went on the attack.
On the June 18 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly scolded President Obama for bringing up the issue of gun control after the Charleston shooting.
O'REILLY: Pundits who can say they can prevent individual acts of terror are misleading you. No one can do that. Unfortunately, President Obama strayed into the theoretical today.On the June 18 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity criticized "people racing to politicize a massacre" before the victims' "bodies are even cold." Hannity singled out President Obama's remarks:
HANNITY: It was not a surprise today when the president was among the first to use the incident not to unite Americans in a moment of grief, but to divide Americans over a hot button issue like gun control.On the June 18 edition of Fox News Outnumbered, after spending the morning calling for looser gun regulations in wake of the shooting, host Andrea Tantaros criticized President Obama's remarks, claiming they were a part of a divisive, two-sided, nasty political debate:
TANTAROS: We have a shooting in this country and then what happens is they usually give that 24-hour grace period. I think, judge, you made the point, the president a little surprising, he came out talking about gun control very quickly, which some may find to be insensitive, they're going to debate that, I'm sure, and point fingers.Matthew Vadum Called Obama A "Hateful Sicko" And A "Fascist" After His Comments Condemning The Charleston Shootings. Right-wing author Matthew Vadum released a series of tweets attacking Obama.
In an article published on June 18, Breitbart writer Joel Pollak attacked President Obama for proposing potential policy solutions to address tragedies like the Charleston church shooting:
President Barack Obama reacted to Wednesday's horrific massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina by calling for gun control and criticizing the United States for the frequency of mass shooting events.Fox & Friends: More Guns In The Church Could Have Stopped The Shooter. The June 18 edition of Fox & Friends exploited the Charleston shooting to call for more guns. Guest E.W. Jackson urged "pastors and men in these churches to prepare to defend themselves," and host Brian Kilmeade suggested arming pastors with guns to ensure church "security." Co-host Steve Doocy added:
DOOCY: If somebody was there, they would have had the opportunity to pull out their weapon and take [the shooter] out ... If somebody in there had a gun.On the June 18 edition of Fox News The Real Story, guest host Heather Childers suggested that, "it sounded like the president was already bringing politics into the mix." Childers also put forward her favored solution, noting the theory that an armed congregation member could have changed the outcome of the South Carolina church attack.
And now the facts, Research Shows More Guns Increases Violence.
According to research from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, right to carry laws have not led to decrease in crime and are actually associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.
American Journal Of Public Health Study: Correlation Exists Between Gun Ownership Rates And Gun Homicide Rates. A 2013 study that covered 30 years of data found a correlation between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides.
Harvard Injury Control Research Center: "In Homes, Cities, States And Regions In The US, Where There Are More Guns" There Are More Gun Homicides. According to a summary of available literature by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, higher levels of gun ownership are associated with higher homicide rates.
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.
Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Republicans Ignore Racism Evidence To Spin Church Shooting As War On Christians
By: Steve - June 20, 2015 - 11:00am
After a white gunman, Dylann Storm Roof, shot and killed 9 African-Americans in a black South Carolina church, conservative pundits and politicians wasted no time trying to dismiss racism as a factor in the shooting. Instead, the conservatives pivoted to define the terrorist attack on the historic black church as part of the "war on Christianity."
For example, over at Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy was astonished that the killing spree was being labeled a hate crime, just because a white guy shot up a black church. While he argued that investigators shouldn't jump to conclusions, he then drew his own conclusions.
In Doocy's world view racism no longer exists, the shooter must have been motivated by "hostility towards Christians" instead. Bill O'Reilly also has the same views, in his world racism is over and people who complain about racism are hucksters and race hustlers.
Fox & Friends biased right-wing guest Reverend E. W. Jackson, a failed former candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor and an African-American defender of segregation, was quick to dismiss the significance of race. Instead, he blamed the shooting on a war against Christianity. Jackson stated:
There does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians in this country because of our biblical views... Most people jump to conclusions about race. I long for the day when we stop doing that in our country. But we don't know why he went into a church, but he didn't choose a bar, he didn't choose a basketball court, he chose a church, and we need to be looking at that very closely.
Apparently Jackson thinks if the shooter was after black people he would have gone to a bar or a basketball court, because African-Americans like to drink and shoot hoops. In Jackson's view the shooter was just a color blind anti-Christian assassin who coincidentally chose a black church and shot dead 6 black women and 3 black men without noticing their race.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum also labeled the shooting as an assault on religious liberty, not a racially-motivated assault on people of color.
This is one of those situations where you just have to take a step back and say we -- you know, you talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we're now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we've never seen before.
Republican Rudy Giuliani also urged people not to jump to conclusions or to inject race into the discussion, saying this:
We have no idea what's in his mind. Maybe he hates Christian churches.
Conservatives are so busy trying to deny racism exists, and so determined to cast themselves as victims of religious persecution that they are unable to confront the ugly truth even when it stares them in the face.
The suspect, Dylann Storm Roof, who was arrested Thursday morning, appears on his Facebook page donning a jacket with an apartheid-era South Africa patch and a flag of Rhodesia patch. Both symbols are worn by White Supremacists to signify support for restoring "white rule."
Another photograph shows Roof posing in front of a car with a front license plate reading "Confederate States of America." Those images just might suggest that he chose a black church for his target because he knew that their would be black people inside.
In addition, the suspect's MySpace page contains very little content, but it does prominently display a song from the Christian heavy metal band "A Thousand Times Repent" on it. While a single song link doesn't necessarily give much insight into Roof's religious views, it does at least provide evidence that he might self-identify as a Christian.
Unless the folks at Fox & Friends want to argue that obscure Christian metal bands are the music of choice for atheists, they are running out of evidence for their narrative that Roof's crime was motivated more by hatred towards Christianity than hatred towards blacks.
Law enforcement agencies are treating the Charleston Church shootings as a racially-motivated hate crime, because all the evidence points in that direction. Conservatives can try to spin the story if they like, but the truth is plain as can be.
Dylann Storm Roof committed a hateful act of domestic terrorism in a church full of black people. Their is no other way to spin it but to call it what it was, a racially motivated hate crime.
Crazy O'Reilly Thinks Trump Would Be Better President Than Hillary
By: Steve - June 20, 2015 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday night that he would pick a guy like Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton for president any day.
But then again, why are we even surprised?
He first posed the idea to his guest, Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers, who was visibly stunned to hear the words come out of O'Reilly's mouth.
"If you had a choice, Powers, between a Donald Trump type guy and a Hillary Clinton type politician, you are telling me that you would pull the lever for Mrs. Clinton right now?" O’Reilly asked.
“Are you telling me you wouldn’t?” she asked. “Are you kidding me?”
"I'd rather have the straight talk of Donald Trump than the obfuscation of Hillary Clinton any day, at anytime."
"You seriously are saying right now that you would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?"
Which is just laughable, because 90% of what Trump said at his press conference was lies, and not even close to straight talk. He said you can only use Obamacare if you are hit by a tractor, total lie. And he said he would bring all the jobs back from China, total lie. Virtually all of what he said was lies and nonsense, and he never once said how he would do it, so none of it was straight talk.
O'Reilly sat down with Trump earlier that morning for Trump's first TV interview after announcing his 2016 GOP campaign. During the interview, Trump addressed his controversial remarks that he was going to build a wall along the southern border and make Mexico pay for it, saying that he will "start charging for their product coming into this country" until they agree to build it.
Not to mention this, Trump and O'Reilly are friends who have been seen sitting together at Yankees games, so he is biased and has a conflict of interest, which he did not disclose.
O'Reilly told Powers that he likes how Trump is telling people exactly what he is going to do and how he is going to do it. On the other hand, he said, Democratic candidate Clinton is proposing to do "impossible" things. Powers called him out immediately.
"Why are you cutting him so much slack?" she asked. "You're going easier on him than you go on me!"
More Proof Bill O'Reilly Has No Clue What He Is Talking About
By: Steve - June 19, 2015 - 11:00am
Another week, another hysterical and paranoid Bill O'Reilly rant. What was this weeks big fear? The war on Christianity? The war on Christmas?
No, it was the rising tide of socialism in America that had O'Reilly’s blood pressure rising. He seems almost positive that socialism is coming to the United States, and it is all because the populace has become too lazy, and the youths of America are incompetent and rude.
In what began as statement about Bernie Sanders, O'Reilly launched into a tirade about the shifting of American society. Of course, he blamed the young kids:
American public school students believe they can slack off in school and then somehow show up in the workplace and make big money.O'Reilly's fear of a shifting society isn't entirely unfounded. He himself mentions the new New York Times/CBS News poll, and the results are quite encouraging for progressives: It found that a strong majority believes our current state of inequality is a major problem, and 57 percent felt that the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, while 68 percent favored raising taxes on people earning more than $1 million.
Additionally, 61 percent of respondents believed that in today's economy, "just a few people at the top have a chance to get ahead." Sixty six percent said that wealth distribution in America is unfair, and should be more even.
It seems like the progressive movement, led by figures such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, is indeed getting through to people. To O'Reilly, however, the current discussion of inequality is a complete sham, designed to undermine capitalism and implement a socialist state. Of Bernie Sanders, O'Reilly said:
"Mr. Sanders is a socialist who does not believe in capitalism. He essentially wants the federal government to regulate the private sector, providing money and assistance to those who are not competitive. And that is the play here. To convince Americans that market competition is bad, unfair, it's a rigged deal. Sadly, that message is gaining currency -- pardon the pun."Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it is a rigged system that is not fair to the middle class and the poor. The wealthy and the corporations control everything, because they have all the money and they use it to buy Congressman and Senators to make more money and get even more tax breaks. If you do not know that, you are not just wrong, you are an idiot, because everyone else does.
And btw, Sanders is clearly for regulation of the private sector and providing assistance to the neediest -- but this is not actual socialism, and Sanders is not a socialist, as in old time socialist. He is a "Modern day Democratic Socialist," who largely believes in the Nordic Model, the economic system found in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, with high progressive taxation, and strong social welfare programs, like universal healthcare.
Coincidentally, Scandinavians are consistently found to be the "world’s happiest people."
Switzerland ranked number one, followed by Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Canada. The US ranked 15th, something O'Reilly never reports.
Of course, O'Reilly and the rest of his Fox News ilk don't quite care about the difference between democratic socialism or Marxian socialism or a welfare state.
His use of the word is not so much about social systems, but about what the word means to so many of his viewers -- much like the words fascism and communism were used during the twentieth century. The right wing seems to have two views of socialism, one of them being extremely paranoid, and the other less paranoid.
The paranoid view believes that socialism means Stalinesque totalitarianism, and the less-paranoid view pictures mass laziness and a nightmarish bureaucracy.
The paranoid view stems from F.A. Hayek's classic polemic, "The Road to Serfdom," which proposed that any government planning (he had the New Deal in mind) would inevitably lead to a totalitarian state, which of course did not pan out.
O'Reilly takes the latter view, and is positive that the coming socialistic nightmare will arrive because the population has become uneducated and lazy, especially the youths.
It is a view that has existed throughout history; an older man complaining about young people, sure that the future is cursed. Fifty years ago, the elderly were complaining about O'Reilly's generation, and fifty years from now, Millennial's will be complaining about the youth.
This is nothing new, back when O'Reilly was growing up, McCarthy was targeting anyone who could have been socialist, so maybe he's feeling nostalgic?
O'Reilly goes on to blame the lack of education in America, seemingly unaware that the Millennial's are the most educated of any generation, but that there are fewer jobs for them than in the past. "You have to get educated," said O'Reilly, "That doesn't mean you have to go to college. But if you don't, you have to know how to fix stuff. Or perform some service that people need."
It's very simple to O'Reilly, its not because of outsourcing or technological innovation or globalization or the destruction of unions over the past forty years, no, its because "American public school students believe they can slack off in school and then somehow show up in the workplace and make big money."
Even though the Republicans have busted almost all the unions and the corporations have sent half our jos overseas, O'Reilly ignores all that to blame kids for being lazy
And finally, O'Reilly reminisce's about his childhood upbringing in 1950s Leave it to Beaver suburbia. "There were nearly hundreds of kids in that neighborhood all over the place. All of the same economic circumstance. Not much money."
This is middle class Levittown he's talking about, where he grew up comfortably and went to private schools, and where black people were not even allowed to live.
Trump Paid People $50 Each To Attend His Campaign Rally
By: Steve - June 19, 2015 - 10:00am
"There's never been a crowd like this," Donald Trump declared of the few hundred people gathered in Trump Tower on Tuesday to watch him announce his 2016 Republican presidential campaign. While that comment, among others he made, wasn't exactly true, we are now learning that a lot of those in attendance were paid actors.
The rumors began to swirl when Angelo Carusone posted an essay on Medium that included a since-deleted Instagram photo of two Trump supporters who attended the rally wearing what appear to be homemade t-shirts and carrying makeshift signs.
The gentleman who posted the pic is a paid actor who regularly posts photos from his gigs on social media. This seemed like all the others from his gigs that he posts. Sure. It seemed fishy. But, but I figured that perhaps it was just a coincidence? Paid actors can support presidential candidates too. No big. I persisted in my incredulity at the thought that Trump might actually pay actors to attend his campaign launch.
Then I discovered the other person pictured in the photo is also a paid actress.
Ultimately, he discovered that a company called Extra Mile NYC helped the Trump campaign find actors willing to pretend to be supporters for a few hours in exchange for compensation.
Based off of this initial report, The Hollywood Reporter tracked down the actual email sent by Extra Mile to its subscribers, quoting the rate at $50 cash for those who showed up:
Hi there--Reached by THR, Extra Mile claimed not to know anything about the casting call. And Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of course denied the accusations.
"Mr. Trump draws record crowds at almost every venue at which he is a featured speaker," he said in a statement. "The crowds are large, often record-setting and enthusiastic, often with standing ovations. Mr. Trump's message is 'make America great again.'" Which is a known lie, because Trump gave a speech at CPAC in 2013 and nobody was there, they had 200 or so seats set up and maybe 20 people showed up, so he does not draw record (or even good) crowds at every speech he gives.
And given all of the evidence, the more likely scenario is that Trump's team wanted to take any precautions necessary to avoid the unfortunate optics that greeted him at CPAC in 2013.
Dana Perino Exposes Eric Bolling For Pandering To Donald Trump
By: Steve - June 18, 2015 - 11:00am
Perino Exposes Fox Colleague For "Pandering" To Donald Trump To Get On Celebrity Apprentice
Perino To Eric Bolling: "You've Been Trying To Close The Deal For Years For You To Be On Celebrity Apprentice"
Here is the transcript:
PERINO: Do you actually think that somebody on stage, say Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, whoever Ted Cruz, take your pick, that they should, on the debate stage the moderator should say, "Mr. Rubio, Trump says that he's going to bring back all the jobs from China. How do you respond?" And like the candidates are supposed to respond to that? How actually is Donald Trump going to bring back all the jobs from China?
And here's the thing for him. This is where the rubber meets the road. He's now a declared candidate. So when you say stuff like "I think Oprah should be the vice president," sure. Well, actually now you're going to have to be back up on it. So in the morning then you have to go on Fox & Friends and go "well, wait, I didn't really mean that." What I meant to say was. And it's just a totally different ball game.
BOLLING: How's this? Every one of the debate moderators that are looking forward to that moment where they can say, "Mr. Trump said this." How do you respond, Rand? Or how do you respond, Marco, or Jeb? And everyone in America is going to go wait let me see what Jeb says about what he says.
WILLIAMS: This is all entertainment.
BOLLING: No. Because then they will want to know what Jeb says.
PERINO: How would you answer that? How would you say, how would you bring back all the jobs from China?
BOLLING: First of all, I don't know that Donald ever said he'll bring back all the jobs from China.
PERINO: He said it in his speech yesterday.
BOLLING: But, you can certainly bring back some of the jobs.
PERINO: And covering up for him is actually wrong. And I understand that you have a deal that you're trying to work on with him. I saw the Twitter last night. I just don't see how that's any different than how another journalist is actually pandering when you said you've been trying to close the deal for years for you to be on Celebrity Apprentice.
BOLLING: Oh, my god. You actually think that I -- I've been friendly with Donald Trump for 15 years.
PERINO: You're the one that was shouting it from the rooftop yesterday.
BOLLING: Are you actually saying you're going to accuse me of saying that Donald Trump has some good ideas that are resonating with America because I want to be on Celebrity Apprentice? Please tell me that's not the case.
PERINO: I am saying it.
BOLLING: I will tell you unequivocally that is not the case I can't be on Celebrity Apprentice anyway. I'm a host at Fox News. I'm not allowed to.
Basically, Perino called him out for it because she knows it is true, and of course Bolling denied it, because he has to. While defending Trump and kissing his rear end.
New Report Finds Walmart Hiding Billions To Avoid Paying Taxes
By: Steve - June 18, 2015 - 10:00am
A new report from Americans For Tax Fairness uncovered Walmart's vast network of international subsidiaries that Walmart is using to hide $76 billion in order to avoid paying taxes in the United States.
Here are some of the key findings from the report:
Walmart has established a vast and relatively new web of subsidiaries in tax havens, while avoiding public disclosure of these subsidiaries.
All told it has 78 subsidiaries and branches in 15 offshore tax havens, none of them publicly reported before. They have remained invisible to experts on corporate tax avoidance in part because of the way Walmart has filed information about them to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Walmart may be skirting the law as there is a legal requirement to list subsidiaries that account for greater than 10 percent of assets or income.
Luxembourg, dubbed a "magical fairyland" by one tax expert because of its ability to shelter profits from taxation, has become Walmart's tax haven of choice. It has 22 shell companies there -- 20 established since 2009 and five in 2015 alone. Walmart does not have one store there. Walmart has transferred ownership of more than $45 billion in assets to Luxembourg subsidiaries since 2011. It reported paying less than 1 percent in tax to Luxembourg on $1.3 billion in profits from 2010 through 2013.
Walmart has made tax havens central to its growing International division, which accounts for about one-third of the company's annual profits.
At least 25 out of 27 (and perhaps all) of Walmart's foreign operating companies (in the U.K.Brazil, Japan, China and more) are owned by subsidiaries in tax havens. All of these companies have retail stores and many employees. Walmart owns at least $76 billion in assets through shell companies domiciled in the tax havens of Luxembourg ($64.2 billion) and the Netherlands ($12.4 billion) -- that's 90 percent of the assets in Walmart's International division ($85 billion) or 37 percent of its total assets ($205 billion).
Walmart appears to be playing a long game - from tax deferral to profit windfall.
It is using tax-haven subsidiaries to minimize foreign taxes where it has retail operations and to avoid U.S. tax on those foreign earnings. Walmart apparently hopes the U.S. Congress will reward its use of tax havens by enacting legislation that would allow U.S.-based multinationals to pay little U.S. tax when repatriating current low-taxed foreign earnings (such as to fund infrastructure spending) and pay no tax with the adoption of a territorial tax system.
Republicans have been pushing hard for a tax-free holiday to allow these corporations to bring the money back to the US with no taxes due. Walmart is waiting for Republicans to pass a bill that will reward them for hiding money overseas.
Not only does Walmart keep their workers in poverty through low wages, kill small locally owned businesses when they move into an area, cause an increase in local taxes by getting sweetheart tax free deals from local politicians, tax dodging by corporate giants like Walmart increases taxes on small businesses by $3,200 a year.
The Walton family are the only people who benefit from the Walmart way of doing business. Walmart is one of the biggest tax cheats in the United States, which is why it is time for the IRS and the federal government to investigate Walmart.
And of course, the biased corporate right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it.
Fox Host Lies That Obamacare Will Prevent New Jobs
By: Steve - June 17, 2015 - 11:00am
Fox News Martha MacCallum falsely claimed that businesses are not hiring because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite evidence that the healthcare law will actually create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
During the June 15th America's Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum discussed how Hillary Clinton's support for policies designed to reduce income inequality could impact the presidential race.
Citing her support for the Affordable Care Act, network contributor Katie Pavlich claimed that the health care law "does nothing to pull people out of poverty." MacCallum agreed, saying, "That is true, businesses you talk to all across the country will tell you" that they're not hiring because of Obamacare.
Talking over guest Mary Anne Marsh as she replied, MacCallum demanded to know "why companies are not hiring" if not because of the Affordable Care Act.
MacCallum's lie is just the latest effort by the conservative media (including Bill O'Reilly) to fearmonger that the ACA would eliminate jobs.
In 2014, the right-wing media consistently misread a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which found that the ACA would create more job opportunities by freeing Americans from job lock, claiming that it would actually eliminate positions, and going so far as to label the law a "job destroyer."
In reality, the CBO's ten-year Budget and Economic Outlook report predicted that the health care law would create jobs while stimulating the economy:
The ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services--thereby increasing overall demand.As the Brookings Institute also pointed out in a March 2015 blog post, while it isn't yet possible to definitively evaluate the health care law's impact on employment, it is "not easy to make a convincing case that job gains have lagged since the President signed the health insurance law."
The post also noted that "the pace of job growth has actually increased in the past few months as the Administration began to enforce the employer penalty provisions of the law."
Do Not Believe The GOP Propaganda Jeb Bush Was A Terrible Governor
By: Steve - June 17, 2015 - 10:00am
On Monday, after six months of "actively exploring" and raising massive amounts of cash, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush finally made his long-assumed bid for President official with a kickoff speech at Miami Dade College.
Key to his campaign, as he tries to stand out in a crowded and growing GOP primary, is touting his eight years in the governor's mansion in Florida, where he made sweeping economic and social policy changes that continue to reverberate in the state today.
In recent speeches, Bush has pointed to his "pro-life record" as governor, which included opposing funding for stem cell research as well as his involvement in the controversial Terri Schiavo case -- which overrode a family's wishes and re-inserted a feeding tube into a woman who had been brain-dead for 15 years.
Yet the Governor was not only in favor of the death penalty, he pushed for changes to speed up capital punishment cases and make it easier to execute people.
With some of the Republican Party's biggest donors focusing heavily on criminal justice reform -- particularly policies that reduce the country's massive prison population -- Bush may have a challenging time explaining his record.
In his first year as governor he signed a bill that increased some mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile offenders. He also worked to block efforts to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, and fought to keep harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenders, even though he was a regular smoker in his youth.
In 2002, he opposed a ballot measure that would have allowed drug offenders to enter treatment programs instead of prison.
Bush's changes on the economic front were even more influential. He eliminated about 13,000 government jobs -- more than 10 percent of the entire state government -- in part by privatizing a slew of public services, including foster care, adoption services, legal representation for death row prisoners, human resources, and state parks.
His penchant for privatization continued after he left office, with investments in private disaster response corporations and for-profit education. He has recently called for privatizing veterans health care.
Another point of pride for Bush is the billions of dollars in tax cuts that he signed into law, changes that almost exclusively benefited the wealthiest in the state.
Today, Florida is one of the country's most unequal states, with the one of the widest and fastest growing gaps between the rich and the poor. The loss of tax revenue also fueled the state's debt, which rose from $15 billion to more than $23 billion while Bush was in office.
And Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, but if a Democratic Governor puts a state deeper into debt O'Reilly is all over it saying liberal policies are bankrupting the country, while ignoring the fact that conservative policies are doing the very same thing.
Scott Walker To Take Taxpayer Money & Give It To Billionaires
By: Steve - June 16, 2015 - 11:00am
It is no great secret that Republicans can never find a penny for education, infrastructure improvements, social services, or safety nets, but they have a veritable endless supply of taxpayer money to benefit billionaires. It is typical of Republicans to rob taxpayer dollars to subsidize their favorite industries, and in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker intends on forcing taxpayers to subsidize a sports arena to save a few billionaires hundreds-of-millions of dollars.
The Republican Scott Walker's plan to build a new basketball stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks paid for with taxpayer dollars is, no matter how it is viewed, an outrageous example of corporate welfare and typical Republican corruption.
Some proponents of the publicly financed gift to billionaires claim that taxing Wisconsin residents to build a new stadium is an opportunity to reinvigorate an "economically depressed city," but their assertion falls short of any reasonable person's concept of what "reinvigorating an economically depressed city" means.
However, this is happening in the dysfunctional state of Wisconsin and the publicly financed gift to bolster the wealth of billionaires is being pushed by Scott Walker, so it is not meant to make economic or ethical sense to reasonable people.
According to Walker, the brilliant plan to build a new $500 million stadium for the billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball franchise forces taxpayers to pay for half of the cost. What is no mystery is that the initial $250 million taxpayer contribution, before the typical and significant cost overruns, is exactly the amount Walker and his Republican legislature have planned to cut from the University of Wisconsin system.
Even though the price of a ticket is far beyond the reach of most Wisconsin residents whether they live in Milwaukee or not, Walker explained that his plan to rob $80 million from all Wisconsin taxpayers and the remaining $170 million will be pilfered from a variety of sources at the local level and truly protects the taxpayers.
Walker also claimed that "It's also something I can say is good for lawmakers anywhere in the state."
One state official who will benefit from taxpayers largesse to billionaires is Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, one of the key architects of the taxpayer-funded sports arena and gift to billionaires.
Abele, promised, with all his heart, that the brand new stadium would "generate millions of dollars in property value and provide a great return on investment." There is a very good reason Abele raised the point about property value and a great return on investment; charging taxpayers to build the stadium will increase his property's value and generate millions of dollars in income for him.
Abele recently purchased a $2 million condominium directly next to the site of the proposed arena as well as the restaurants and stores developers plan to surround it with.
According to Milwaukee economics professor Michael Rosen, "The appreciation for that condo will go sky-high; it will appreciate like crazy when that stadium gets built. He has an interest in this, even though his job as public official is to look out for this community, but I'm not saying that's why he bought it."
Abele certainly bought the property next to a major development to take a substantial profit at taxpayers expense. It is why Walker and Abele's plans to build the stadium is an example of typical Republican corruption, as well as a blatant example of corporate welfare funded by cash-strapped Wisconsin taxpayers; most whom will never be able to afford a $60 -- $80 ticket to watch a basketball game.
And btw, Walker's plan has been criticized by progressives and conservatives alike, and at a public meeting earlier this week, a large crowd rightly took exception to the idea of using hundreds-of-millions of taxpayer dollars to build a sports complex that only benefits billionaires. In fact, besides robbing taxpayer money meant for education, law enforcement, firefighters, and roads, the attendees were livid that public land worth $9 million was sold to the team's billionaire owners for a measly 1 dollar.
Walker claims that giving free taxpayer money, and public land, to billionaires is an incredibly wise means of investing in the Milwaukee economy even though economists claim that is patently false.
According to economics professor Michael Rosen, "You could do more for the local economy by taking a plane over the city of Milwaukee and dropping $500 million dollars down. That would generate more economic activity than building a stadium. People have a fixed entertainment budget. So if they go see the Bucks and spend $60 or $80 on a ticket, that's money they're not using to go to the theater or movies or out to eat. That's why stadiums have no positive impact on economic growth."
Rosen also made an important point that since most Bucks players do not live year-round in Milwaukee, the "millions of dollars in their salaries will not benefit the community."
However, there is always a very positive economic impact for developers and the politicians reaping campaign donations for pushing taxpayer-funded projects that benefit their billionaire donors.
Republicans never seem to lack ways of stealing from taxpayers, particularly the poor and middle class, to enrich the already wealthy whether they own corporations or sports franchises. Scott Walker is no exception and his antipathy toward Wisconsin residents, and education in particular, is epitomized by his crusade to build a sports stadium that benefits no-one but the Milwaukee Bucks billionaire owners and multi-millionaire players.
As Michael Rosen said, "Our elected officials need to better look out for the people of this community, who need social services and health care." However, Republicans are incapable of looking out for the people of any community because their entire focus is looking out for billionaires and in Scott Walkers case it is a cabal of billionaires who own the Milwaukee Bucks.
Another Obama Economy Record O'Reilly & The Right Have Ignored
By: Steve - June 16, 2015 - 10:00am
For years all O'Reilly and the Republicans have done is tell one lie about President Obama after another. From doubts about his citizenship to death panels to his apparent plan to invade Texas, there really does not seem to be a depth to which many Republicans will not stoop when it comes to fear-mongering against this president.
But the area that's been universal when it comes to all aspects of the Republican party, not just the extreme right, is trying to attack the "Obama economy." It's basically become a monthly tradition after the newest jobs report is released to head on over to House Speaker John Boehner's Twitter account to see how he'll try to put some sort of negative spin on the always positive reports.
Even now, coming off the best economic year since the Clinton Administration, O'Reilly and the Republicans continue to claim that President Obama has been a failure. In fact, they're so desperate to bash the "Obama economy" that they've taken up to pretending to care about income inequality, even though the gap between the haves and have nots has been growing at a record pace since the Reagan Administration.
Not only that, but the years just prior to the 2008 economic collapse (2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008) we saw the worst levels of income inequality since the years before the Great Depression. It's a fact that shouldn't be discounted: the two biggest crashes in our nation's history followed some of the worst years for income inequality in our nation's history.
But they still say let's keep giving more money to the rich, right?
Well, another record of sorts has been set by the Obama administration that O'Reilly and the Republicans are not going to like: U.S. job openings are at their highest level since 2000.
And of course O'Reilly is silent about it, in fact, he never reports any good news about the economy.
This shows that the economy is getting stronger, companies are turning solid profits, demand is growing and they're predicting more of the same in the future.
I can already hear Republicans saying that most of these jobs are low-paying, or part-time, which is why people don't want them. There are two ways to break that nonsense down. First, the claim about part-time jobs has already been debunked, so that's an outright lie.
Then when it comes to low-paying jobs, considering that the rich are doing great right now, if that's the route Republicans want to go then they're admitting that trickle-down economics is a scam and cutting taxes has nothing to do with increasing wages.
I'm sure many Republicans who come across this information will find some way to twist it in any way they possibly can just so that they can continue to avoid admitting the truth:
Obama has been a highly successful president. On his watch we've had: A record streak for job creation. The best economic year since the Clinton era. Record stock levels. Unemployment is at 5.5%.
Those are just a few of the extremely positive economic numbers we've seen during Obama's presidency, and on the heels of one of the worst economic crashes in nearly a century.
O'Reilly and his Republican friends can continue to deny reality all they want, but history will show that this president will have been one of the most economically successful presidents in our nation's history.
Republican Senator Tells Hannity His Solutions Do Not Work
By: Steve - June 15, 2015 - 11:00am
It's not often that a Republican stands up to Fox News. But Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) took host Sean Hannity to task on Tuesday, defending previous remarks in which he called the Fox News host "polarizing."
"I believe you're a principled fellow, but I've come to conclude that the Republican Party as a whole needs to knock off some of this stuff,' Graham said on Hannity's show.
Last week, Graham joked about political polarization in an interview with NBC News Chuck Todd, asking Todd to imagine a "Saturday Night Live" sketch of the Constitution being drafted in modern times.
"Ben Franklin comes outside and Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity jump on him, 'Don't give in, Ben,'" Graham said. "Just think how hard it is in today's 24/7 news cycle. There is a group telling you to say no about everything."
While Graham maintains a hard conservative line on foreign policy and social issues, he has staked out a relatively moderate position in a number of other areas, such as immigration.
Hannity invited Graham on his program to address the comments, and argued that polarization was not necessarily a bad thing. "You're claiming that we're responsible for polarizing," Hannity told the senator. "Wasn't Martin Luther King polarizing in a good way, standing up for justice?"
Which is an insane comparison, because MLK was fighting for civil rights for blacks, and an end to racism. Which is not the same as what Hannity fights for, like blocking women from having abortions, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. The comparison is laughable.
Graham defended his remarks on Hannity's show, singling out immigration and the budget as two issues he and the host disagree on.
Over the past decade, immigration reform has been stymied by partisan disagreements. Hard-line conservatives want the borders secured before the undocumented population in the U.S. is addressed, while Democrats and some Republicans want these issues dealt with in tandem.
Hannity has taken the former stance, which Graham said on Tuesday was untenable.
"What I am saying is that your solutions don't work," Graham said. "At the end of the day, you can't secure the border unless you tell the Democrats what's going to happen with the 11 million undocumented."
Graham also criticized Hannity's plan for balancing the budget, which he said didn't raise revenue sufficiently. The South Carolina senator asked Hannity if he would eliminate tax deductions to help pay down the national debt.
No, Hannity countered. "I would cut a penny out of every dollar and eliminate baseline budgeting and you can balance the budget in six years."
"No, you can't," Graham said flatly. "Young people have to work longer and people at our income level are going to have to take a little less, or we're going to destroy this country."
Graham also seemed to take issue with Republicans brinkmanship over budget issues and health care, which has led in the past to threats of government shutdown, as well as one actual shutdown.
"You're not going to get Obama to repeal Obamacare because we threatened to shut down the government," he said.
Former GOP Senator Trashes Republican Party Presidential Field
By: Steve - June 15, 2015 - 10:00am
And I would have to agree, looking at all the people they have running, from Ted Cruz to Jeb Bush, to Rand Paul and Ben Carson, it's a joke in my book, and shocking these are the best people they can come up with.
Regardless of their actual feelings, politicians tend to praise their colleagues in public as a matter of decorum, especially those in the same political party.
That's why it was so surprising when former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who served 10 years in the Senate and 6 years in the House of Representatives before retiring in January 2015, offered up some openly negative comments about the 2016 Republican presidential field.
In an interview with conservative Andrew Wilkow last week, Coburn trashed nearly every Republican running for president, calling them "not ready for primetime," lacking "integrity," not "capable," and saying he wouldn't support one of them even if he won the nomination.
Wilkow acknowledged the impact of Coburn's words, noting that "once you retire, you can speak your mind in a way that might be different than if you were still sitting in the Senate."
Coburn has also called out his own party for its relentless quest to defund Obamacare, saying it took them "away from the larger picture."
He also dismissed 2013 legislation designed to defund health care reform as "dishonest" and "hype." Said Coburn, "It's a terribly dangerous and not successful strategy."
And of course, the so-called journalist (who claims to be objective) Bill O'Reilly has never said a word about this story, let alone have Coburn on the Factor for an interview to discuss it.
Pamela Geller Says O'Reilly Is Afraid To Have Her On His Show
By: Steve - June 14, 2015 - 11:30am
Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" cartoon contest ended up getting her a lot of media attention, weeks after the contest was the target of a thwarted attack by two gunmen. Geller has made lots and a lot of media appearances, but talked with The Hollywood Reporter -- in an interview out today -- about where she hasn't been.
Geller insisted she's not being "overly provocative" and warned that "if we refrain from drawing Muhammad, more demands to adhere to other aspects of Sharia will follow."
When asked about particularly hostile interviewers, Geller singled out three CNN anchors -- Erin Burnett, Alisyn Camerota, and Chris Cuomo -- and one Fox News anchor, Martha MacCallum.
She also scolded Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham for trashing her.
O'Reilly said on his show several times that "insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid," and Ingraham -- who appeared with O'Reilly in one of those segments -- grilled Geller along the same lines.
And speaking of O'Reilly, the THR interview included this exchange:
Are there any TV hosts you'd like to face off with but who won't have you on?
Bill O'Reilly. I expect he knows he would be shown up.
Geller also declared that Hollywood is already mostly "in the pocket" of jihadists anyway.
Report Shows Governments Giving $5 Trillion To Oil Companies
By: Steve - June 14, 2015 - 10:30am
The 5 biggest oil companies made $135 Billion dollars in profit in 2014, so why in the bloody hell are we giving them $5.3Trillion in subsidies every year.
Most Americans should know by now that Republicans despise entitlements that they errantly consider is anything Americans receive; even if it is theirs to begin with. They hate the idea of retired Americans receiving their Social Security and Medicare after paying into them their entire working lives, and they hate Americans working at slave-wage jobs receiving nutrition assistance because they earn too little to survive.
What they do not hate, and fight ferociously for, are taxpayer-funded entitlements that go to corporations in the form of tax loopholes and particularly entitlements for the oil industry in the form of subsidies.
According to the oil industry, the very idea of ending billions-of-dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the profitable industry is un-American; a position that Republicans embrace with religious passion. However, it is not just Republicans that believe the oil industry deserves to be paid for being a highly-profitable business; the world's governments are handing outlandish amounts of the population's money to the industry that is driving the Earth's climate change.
In a new report from researchers at the International Monetary Fund, the world's governments are providing subsidies to the highly profitable oil industry to the tune of an astonishing $5.3 trillion in benefits per year. Another way of looking at just how much the world pays the oil industry that bears responsibility for decimating the Earth's environment; imagine they receive $10 million per minute.
That is $10 million every minute, every day, of every month, of every year. Those mind-boggling entitlements have grown over the past couple of decades and are increasing every year.
All while, in America Republicans are either denying that the Earth's climate is warming, or debating whether global warming is caused by man's propensity to pump carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If that is not bad enough, Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to preserve America's billions in oil industry subsidies while crusading to abolish any and all environmental regulations and eliminate efforts to find new and less costly clean energy alternatives.
What most Americans may be surprised to learn, is that the IMF report revealed that besides the obvious cash subsidies being regularly gifted to the oil industry of a collective $88 billion from the G-20 nations alone, are the horrific consequences of burning fossil fuels that very few nations, including the Koch-backed American government, are even willing to address.
Actually, it is the effects of pouring billions of tons of climate changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that accounts for nearly three-quarters of the final $5.3 trillion annual figure arrived at by IMF researchers. According to a statement from Benedict Clements representing the IMF's fiscal affairs department; "While the large size of our new estimates may be surprising, it is important to put in perspective just how many health problems are linked to energy consumption and air quality."
The IMF's report revealed that ending oil industry entitlements would cut by half the number of deaths attributed to outdoor air pollution alone and save about 1.6 million human lives each year. Besides, the level of money being paid to the oil industry for nothing would be better spent on healthcare, education, and infrastructure improvements and relieve the crushing poverty plaguing third world nations like America and drive robust economic growth.
President Obama has made efforts to scale back America's contribution to destroying the Earth's climate, and in fact joined Democrats one attempt at putting an end to taxpayer-funded entitlements to the oil industry. But this is the Koch brothers America and although Republicans will never allow the entitlements to stop flowing to their favorite campaign donors, Republicans continue spending taxpayer dollars to bolster the profitable oil industry's bottom line.
It is a sad state of affairs, but the rest of the world's population, like the American people, are going to have to come to grips with the tragic fact that they are contributing to the $5.3 trillion annual oil subsidies to destroy the environment and the Earth's climate whether they like it or not. The lack of outrage in the population informs that obviously, most Americans do like it and that, in itself, is incredibly discouraging.
Bill O'Reilly Is A Coward & Fox News Lies
By: Steve - June 13, 2015 - 11:30am
Bill O'Reilly and Mike Tobin both claim that their biggest critics do not even watch them, so according to them they have no credibility.
Tobin recently said this:
TOBIN: "I find that our greatest critics don't watch us."Now think about this, how does he know that, is he in their house to see what they are watching, of course not, so he has no way to know if their critics are watching them or not, so the entire statement is garbage and unprovable.
It's the same excuse O'Reilly uses to attack someone who attacks him, and it's nonsense. He also claims that his critics do not even watch him so they have no right to attack him for anything, which is also ridiculous.
I am O'Reilly's biggest critic, I started this website in the year 2000, and I write daily blogs about what O'Reilly said, that are based on what I saw while I was watching his show. I watch the Factor every single night, unless it's a re-run or a best of show. And I have for 15 years, so when he says his critics do not watch him he is lying.
Then on top of all that Bill O'Reilly is a coward who will not have me on his show, he claims he confronts all his critics, and once again he is lying. Because he will not debate me, and he will not have me on as a guest.
I document all the bias and lies O'Reilly puts out and I can back it up with transcripts and video, so he is afraid to have me on his show because he knows I would destroy him and his biased right-wing propaganda. So when you hear these Fox News rat say their critics do not watch them, it's a lie, it is how they try to spin their way out of getting caught lying or being guilty of bias.
Facts About Taxing The Rich And The Minimum Wage
By: Steve - June 13, 2015 - 11:00am
When Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton took office in 2011, Minnesota had more than a $6 billion dollar deficit and an unemployment rate of 7%.
Today, Minnesota's unemployment rate is now below 4% and they have a budget surplus of over $1.2 billion dollars. How did Mark Dayton do this? Did he heed his Republican opponent Tom Emmer's advice?
Of course not, he did what was right. He raised taxes on the rich and he raised the minimum wage.
Dayton said this: "Now government cannot create the jobs we need to turn our economy around alone, private business people can help. State government can either help improve the necessary business climate -- as I will do if elected governor -- or it can hurt job development, as my opponents proposals to maintain the status quo would do."
During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion.
He has also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women.
Mark Dayton's approach of making people who can afford to pay, pay, helped eliminate the deficit. And raising the minimum wage gave more people money to spend. Businesses like money and they like people who have money to spend.
And that is how you run a state, now if we could get the other 49 states to do the same we would have a balanced budget, more jobs, and more people making a living wage. And notice that O'Reilly never reports any of this news.
Fox News Defends Suspended Cop Who Later Resigned In Shame
By: Steve - June 13, 2015 - 10:00am
This is a perfect example of the bias at Fox News. When a video comes out about a Republican or police they say do not have a rush to judgement, and wait for the investigation to find all the facts. And when the video of the white cop throwing the 15 year old black girl in a bikini to the ground and then pulling his gun on them came out, Fox News did not just rush to judgement, they jumped with both feet.
Virtually every single person who works at Fox jumped to defend the cop, including O'Reilly, and then the very next day the cop is suspended, and the next day he resigns. And not only did he resign, his own police chief said he was out of control and that his actions were unexcusable. The chief also said he violated their training, and that the other 11 officers who were there did not.
O'Reilly even reported on the story, and as expected left out half the facts. He never said a word about the cop being suspended, or the fact that he had resigned, or the fact that his own police chief said he was out of control and his actions were indefensible.
During the segment O'Reilly even tried to make it a partisan deal, by saying liberals were against the cop and conservatives generally supported him, when his own chief said he was out of control, and you know he was told he had to resign or be fired.
Now here is a partial list of what the partisan hacks at Fox said about it:
Fox's Tom Shillue: Video "Didn't Shock Me At All" Because The Teen "Was Intimidating The Cop."
Fox Business' Lou Dobbs: "What In The World Are Police, We Have To Ask, Supposed To Do When People Who Don't Respect The Law, Refuse To Obey?"
Fox's Brit Hume On Brutal Responses By Police: "If You Obey The Police It Doesn't Usually Happen."
-- Hey Brit, what about the black guy who did obey the cop and got on his hands and knees, then the cop kicked him in the face and broke his jaw and knocked him out, what about that one Brit?
Fox's Megyn Kelly: "The Girl Was No Saint Either."
Sean Hannity Claims That Officer In Texas Was Justified For Pulling A Gun Because Teens Could Have Come Up And "Hit Them With A Shank In The Back."
Fox Guest Bo Dietl: The Teens Might Have Said "I'm Gonna Pop A Cap."
Fox's Doocy Questions "Rush To Judgement" Of Arresting Officer.
Fox's Todd Starnes: "Apparently - If You Object To Teenagers Terrorizing Your Neighborhood - You're A Racist."
O'Reilly said the kids should have just done what the officer told them to, and there would have been no problem. Then he claimed there is an unjustified war on cops, even though every day we see a new video of police misconduct, and you know there are a hundred other similar things happening we do not see, because there is no video of it.
Donald Rumsfeld Finally Admits Going Into Iraq Was Wrong
By: Steve - June 12, 2015 - 11:00am
President George W. Bush was wrong to try to build democracy in Iraq, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a recent interview, marking a striking admission from a key player behind the 2003 U.S. invasion.
In an interview with British newspaper The Times, Rumsfeld said that efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his tyrannical regime with democracy were unworkable, and that he had concerns about the plan from the beginning.
"I'm not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories," Rumsfeld told The Times. "The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words."
Notice that the coward never said anything like this at the time, he waits 15 years to come clean. At the time he said he was 100% supportive of the invasion, but now admits he was against it, so he was lying to the American people when he said he supported it and that it was a good idea.
Rumsfeld, who served under Bush from 2001 to 2006, has previously defended the administration's actions in the run-up to the war, which dragged on for years before formally ending in 2011.
And as expected, the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly is silent about it.
Officer Michael Slager Has Been Charged With Murder
By: Steve - June 12, 2015 - 10:00am
And of course Bill O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, even after defending the cop and saying we do not know what happened, and we should wait to judge him until after the investigation.
Well the investigation is done and the cop was charged with murder, but the dishonest and biased O'Reilly is still not reporting on it. While claiming their is an unjustified war on cops, even though we have case after case of police misconduct, and that is just what we find out about from the media, which is clearly not all of it.
A grand jury has indicted a former South Carolina police officer in the April shooting of an unarmed black man, the prosecutor announced on Monday.
Former North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager, 33, has been charged with murder in the death of Walter Scott, 50. Who was stopped for a broken brake light.
"I think the people of the 9th circuit elected me to be accountable to them, and that’s what we intend to do," Charleston County Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said during a news conference following the announcement of the indictment Monday.
"They have to know they have someone prosecuting the case who is accountable to them."
"We're going to patiently wait for the criminal trial in this case," Chris Stewart, one of the attorneys for the Scott family, said in a brief press conference. "It's just about keeping the faith. The community has done that. The family has done that, and we're going to continue to do that until the resolution of the criminal and the civil case."
So there is more proof we have some police officers in this country who are out of control, and yet, O'Reilly calls it a war on cops, as if they have not done anything wrong, when a lot of them have, not all, but it is a big problem that can not be ignored as O'Reilly wants us to do.
Here Is How O'Reilly Does An Insane Segment About Racism
By: Steve - June 11, 2015 - 11:30am
He has a white Republican comedian on to discuss racism, what did he do, and how is he an expert on racism, he wrote a coloring book about racism. Yes, I am serious, this is an expert on racism to O'Reilly, which is just laughable.
There was no actual racism expert on, no blacks, no liberals, no Democrats, and no balance. It was a joke of a one sided biased segment about racism, with a Republican comedian who wrote a coloring book about racism.
Hey O'Reilly, talk about absurd, this was absurd, and not journalism.
Here is the report on the segment from the O'Reilly website, he even calls him a comedian in the transcript, and I quote:
Comedian Colin Quinn has written a new book called "The Coloring Book," a semi-humorous take on race relations in the USA. He entered the No Spin Zone to elaborate.
"I grew up in Brooklyn," Quinn said, "where I learned that people could be prejudiced without being racist. A store owner would say, 'Hey, the colored lady is next, then the Spanish kid, then the Chinaman, and then you.'
What we're doing now is discussing how we should have a discussion, and the only voices you hear are people who are angry or pandering. They've already decided what they want. And people use terms like 'white privilege' and 'white supremacy' too easily."
Basically what O'Reilly and Quinn are saying is that people of color are just angry and have no valid complaints. And that racism is better today than it was 50 years ago so you should just shut up and love America. They deny racism is still a big problem, even though it is, they just do not want to talk about it because it shows they are wrong and biased whites.
Dishonest O'Reilly Cheap Shots Obama For ISIS Statement
By: Steve - June 11, 2015 - 11:00am
Back in February 2014, Bill O'Reilly asked President Obama in an interview whether he felt he'd been treated unfairly by the Fox News host. "Absolutely," responded the president, citing O'Reilly's choice of questions (IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare).
Should the president ever need another case in point, he's got last night's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor," in which the host cited comments that the president made following the G-7 summit at the Elmau Briefing Center in Germany.
Here's how O'Reilly introduced the topic: "Earlier today Mr. Obama said something that is not only frightening but incredibly disturbing. He was asked about ISIS and why the U.S.A. does not have a strategy to stop the brutal jihadists."
With that, O'Reilly played a clip of Obama that included these comments:
When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people. It's not -- we don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis as well. The details of that are not yet worked out.Based on those comments from the president, O'Reilly concluded: "So after nearly two years the U.S.A. still does not have a plan to confront ISIS. That is not only frightening, but incredibly disturbing. How is it that the president still doesn't have such a strategy? After all, he got hammered for confessing to the lack of a strategy last September."
Well, as it turns out, O'Reilly had chosen the president's words carefully -- and had used a reciprocating saw and a crow bar to strip the president's comments of context -- an important feature of this particular story, as Vox's Jonathan Allen has noted.
And the very same context thing O'Reilly complains about other people doing to him, and yet, he does the very same thing.
The real story: Obama was asked by Bloomberg's Justin Sink about "what is not working in the fight against the Islamic State." In his reply, Obama said that "we have made significant progress in pushing back ISIL from areas in which they had occupied or disrupted local populations, but we've also seen areas like in Ramadi where they're displaced in one place and then they come back in, in another."
Moving on, he stressed the importance of training and equipping Iraqi forces. He explained:
So we're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of Iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped and have a focused strategy and good leadership. And when a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people.
We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis, as well, about how recruitment takes place, how that training takes place. And so the details of that are not yet worked out.
Now O'Reilly could have argued that the administration has progressed too slowly in equipping Iraqi forces; he could have made the case that not having a strategy for equipping Iraqi forces is tantamount to not having a strategy to combat ISIS; he could have made some other argument that only O'Reilly might make. Instead, he was dishonest and took it out of context.
This is what O'Reilly does, complain when people take him out of context and partially quote him, then he does the very same thing taking Obama out of context while partially quoting him. And while he is doing it he claims to be objective and fair to President Obama. Which is just laughable.
O'Reilly Trying To Cover For Rubio Over Financial Scandal
By: Steve - June 11, 2015 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly claims he is not a partisan, and that he has no bias. He also claims he never uses right-wing talking points, and that he is a truth teller. Then he is caught using right-wing talking points, reporting half the facts, being biased, and lying to the American people.
On Tuesday night O'Reilly once again showed that he is a biased partisan who will do anything to defend and cover for Republicans. He slammed the NY Times for valid reporting on Marco Rubio, over traffic tickets and financial problems. The traffic tickets are nothing, but the financial scandal is real and a big problem for Rubio.
And yet, O'Reilly said it was absurd and not journalism. Even though it is journalism, and everyone but O'Reilly seems to think so. Some Republicans are even admitting it is a big problem for Rubio.
Several Republican strategists are saying that the scandal involving Marco Rubio's debt and personal finances is legitimate and could be a big problem for his 2016 presidential campaign.
Politico spoke to several Republican strategists who discussed a New York Times story about Marco Rubio's struggles surrounding excessive spending and debt.
One strategist said. this: "I don't think there's anyone in Iowa who has student loan debts and an 80,000 boat and a 50,000 car."
The stories about Rubio's excessive spending and financial issues are nothing new. In 2012, Reuters reported, "Before joining the Senate last year, his name surfaced in an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Florida Republican Party's use of party-issued credit cards. He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use, and later reimbursed the card company for about $16,000.
A fact that O'Reilly never mentioned, in fact, he never reported any facts related to the actual story, all he did was slam the NY Times for their reporting.
Rubio's handling of his personal finances contrasts sharply with the image of him on his Senate website, which highlights Rubio's efforts to prevent Washington from piling up debt.
At best, Marco Rubio is a hypocrite. At worst, he is a reckless spender with a history of shady deals who can't be trusted manage his own checkbook, much less run the country. The New York Times piece contains too much detail to be easily dismissed and has opened the door for more journalists to dig into Rubio's financial history.
This is a big deal and a real story, because Rubio rails on and on about debt and claims he can fix it if he is elected President. And yet, he can not even manage his own personal finances, while illegally spening party money using GOP credit cards. All this is nothing to O'Reilly, but to everyone else it's a big deal.
O'Reilly and his Republican friends may be hoping that they can bury the Times piece as a partisan hit job, but Rubio wasn't living the life of an average American, and his reckless spending skeletons may doom his presidential campaign.
Julie Roginsky was a guest on the Factor Tuesday night, and she said this: "He wants to be in charge of the nation's finances. He talks about the nation not getting into debt, so he should lead by example by not getting into debt."
But O'Reilly denounced the Times hit piece as "patently absurd, not journalism."
Which is what Republican operatives and spin doctors are saying, O'Reilly reported it the exact same way the partisans on the right did, even though he claims he is not a partisan. He ignores all the facts, to call the NY Times report absurd and not journalism. But somehow every little thing reported about Hillary Clinton about her from the right is valid and ok with O'Reilly.
Police Officer Involved In Pool Party Incident Resigns
By: Steve - June 10, 2015 - 11:00am
And O'Reilly did not report it, even though he did an entire segment on his show about it Tuesday night, not a word about the officer resigning from O'Reilly, while defending the actions of the cop, that his own Police Chief said were indefensible.
Eric Casebolt, the McKinney, Texas, police officer who was caught on video pinning a teenage girl to the ground and pulling his gun on others at a pool party, has resigned from the McKinney Police Department, Chief Of Police Greg Conley announced Tuesday evening.
Casebolt's lawyer told KDFW earlier on Tuesday that the officer had decided to leave the force. Conley said that Casebolt's decision to leave was voluntary and that he would continue to collect a pension and benefits.
Conley strongly condemned Casebolt's actions during the incident and said that the officer, who had been with the department since 2005, was "out of control."
"As the chief of police, I want to say to our community that the actions of Casebolt, as seen on the video, of the disturbance at the pool, are indefensible. Our policies, our training, our practice do not support his actions," he said. "He came into the call out of control, and as the video shows, was out of control during the incident."
Conley also said on Tuesday that charges against 18-year-old Adrian Martin, the only person arrested at the pool party incident, had been dropped.
Casebolt had been placed on administrative leave after video of the incident went viral. That internal investigation has ended because Casebolt is no longer employed by the police department, according to Terry Qualls, a police department spokesperson.
There is an ongoing investigation to determine whether Casebolt should face criminal charges.
Police said in a statement on Sunday that they were responding to reports of a disturbance at the Craig Ranch North Community Pool on Friday. Casebolt was caught on video wrestling a 15 year old black teenage girl to the ground and then pulling his weapon on others who ran to help the girl.
Witnesses said that a fight broke out after white people at the pool started making racist comments towards black teenagers.
O'Reilly ignored the fact that the officer resigned, while defending him, even though his own police chief said he was out of control and violated his training.
Note To Bill O'Reilly: Read This Jerk
By: Steve - June 10, 2015 - 10:00am
Longtime McKinney Officer Blasts Police Conduct At Pool Party, Says Department Has A Race Problem
Incidents in Baltimore, Ferguson and elsewhere have pitted police and their allies against the community. But the reaction to a video that exposed the brutal treatment of black teens at a pool party in McKinney, Texas may be different.
Pete Schutle, a former McKinney police officer and "longtime reserve deputy," spoke to Fox4 Dallas and blasted the conduct of Eric Casebolt, the police corporal shown slamming a 15-year-old girl in a swimsuit to the ground.
"I don't care what she was yelling at that officer. Anything would not have justified throwing her to the ground and pushing her down and throwing her face into the concrete like he did," Schutle said.
Schulte also said there was no reason for Casebolt to have drawn his weapon and described Casebolt's reaction to the situation as "crazy."
According to Schulte, the video indicates that the McKinney police had a race problem. "There is an indication based on watching the video that the white people who were around the officers weren't talked to, they weren't pushed away, they weren't told to get on the ground, they weren't put in handcuffs. The only individuals McKinney police were doing that to were those that were African-American," he said.
A group called Next Generation Action Network is organizing a protest of the McKinney Police on Monday night at 6:30PM.
Another Hillary Clinton Poll Bill O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - June 9, 2015 - 11:00am
A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released on June 4th, found Democrat Hillary Clinton enjoying a 47-40 lead over Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush in North Carolina. The Tarheel State is a crucial battleground state that Republicans cannot afford to lose. Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008, but lost the state to Mitt Romney in 2012.
Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio all trailed Clinton by margins ranging from one to seven percentage points.
Clinton polled especially strong with women voters and African-Americans in North Carolina. Although Jeb Bush held a slight 45-41 advantage with male voters, Clinton held a dominant 51-37 lead with women voters. Clinton also had a crushing advantage with black voters.
The poll found Clinton garnering 86 percent support from African-American voters compared to a pitiful 3 percent who backed Jeb Bush.
While the election is still 16 months away, Hillary Clinton's strong numbers in North Carolina bode well for Democratic prospects in 2016. By amassing overwhelming support from black voters and a decisive edge with women voters, Hillary Clinton is well positioned to lock down North Carolina's 15 electoral votes.
The poll also points to Jeb Bush's weakness if he becomes the Republican nominee. His 7-point deficit to Clinton in North Carolina matched fringe candidate Ted Cruz's poor numbers in the state. Rather than being one of the strongest GOP candidates, Jeb Bush appears to be one of the weakest candidates in the Republican field.
Republicans have reason to worry about the poll numbers in the Tarheel State, because without carrying North Carolina the GOP has no path to victory in the 2016 presidential election.
If the current polling numbers continue to hold in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton would not only carry the Tarheel State but the nation as well, becoming the 45th U.S. President.
Jon Stewart Slams Rick Perry & Jeb Bush
By: Steve - June 9, 2015 - 10:00am
Next year the 2016 field of Republican candidates is going to be one of the biggest sideshows we have seen in modern American political history.
Currently there are ten Republican candidates with at least three more who are certain to declare their candidacies soon (Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker) and the potential for a few others (Chris Christie, Donald Trump, John Kasich).
So we are looking at a potential field of 16 GOP candidates. Which is just insane. And the newest entrant into the circus came yesterday when former Texas governor Rick Perry declared his candidacy. While his announcement has been expected, no sane person thinks he has a shot at winning.
Hell he is not even going to win Texas, because Ted Cruz will, who he would have to beat in order to get the nomination. Does he really think he's going to be picked by Republican voters as their candidate for the general election when he can't even win his home state?
Out of all the current candidates, he's the one who seems to be running on nothing but pure ego rather than at least having some sort of ulterior motive like Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson, both of whom seem to be in it just to make money from the exposure.
Enter Jon Stewart, who loved Perry's announcement, devoting a good portion of his opening segment to mocking the former governor. "Omigawd omigawd omigawd," Stewart enthusiastically announced.
"Perry is running for president. Wow, prayer really does work. Gimme more!" He then played part of Perry's campaign video where he says he's willing to, "Do right, and risk the consequences." "'Risk the consequences,'" Stewart said. "Maybe the most accurate campaign slogan I've ever heard. 'Hi, I'm Rick Perry, let's see what happens!'"
He then went on to mock Perry's decision to wear glasses, a move many people think he made to appear more intelligent after his humiliating 2011 oops moment.
Then Stewart turned his attention to potential candidate Jeb Bush, pointing out the extremely shady way in which Bush has essentially been campaigning to be president -- while avoiding officially declaring -- so he can skirt campaign finance laws as they relate to raising money and coordinating with his PACs.
The fact that Bush can look people in the eye and say that he's still not sure shows what a dishonest liar he is. For months he's literally been out there campaigning for the presidency, maybe more than any other Republican, yet he continued to imply that he was still thinking about it.
If you did not watch Bob Schieffer's final interview, which happened to be with Jeb Bush, I would highly recommend checking it out. He pressed Jeb really hard on why he hasn't announced his candidacy and the former Florida governor just came off looking completely sleazy.
It's segments like these that make me realize just how much I'm going to miss Stewart when he retires at the end of this summer.
Bill O'Reilly Should Be Ashamed To Call Himself A Journalist
By: Steve - June 8, 2015 - 11:00am
Every month when the jobs report comes out I get a little excited. Not just because we're currently in a streak of 63 straight months of private sector job growth - the longest such streak in U.S. history, I get excited because it is good for America and the people who want jobs.
I also enjoy seeing the biased and insane O'Reilly say something that desperately tries to put a negative spin on numbers that have been nothing but positive for well over a year now. After all, this is the guy who constantly says Obama is a failure and the economy is in chaos.
If you haven't heard, May was a great month for jobs. While economists had only expected around 222k jobs to be created, May blew past that with 280k jobs, while unemployment held steady at 5.5 percent. Not only that, but with May’s job numbers, we’ve already created over 1 million jobs in 2015.
And even though wages only grew at 2.3 percent (which is below the 3.5 percent economists like to see), last month marked the largest wage increase in nearly two years. By all accounts, this was one of those jobs reports that really didn’t contain any bad news.
Unless you are Bill O'Reilly and the people at Fox, who try to put a negative spin on these numbers -- even though they failed.
No matter how good the numbers are O'Reilly can not say something positive about the report. Even though May brought basically nothing but good news, he had to add that "economy is contracting" GOP talking point in there, as if Republicans have any actual solution for that. Income inequality has been an issue for decades, not just the last six years – and we all know Republicans haven’t given a damn about it. In fact, the policies they support actually contribute to worsening it.
It must drive O'Reilly nuts to have to see the economy is doing well under President Obama. Especially considering that for years all he did was fear-monger and lie to the American people about how practically everything this president has done -- from raising taxes on the rich to the Affordable Care Act -- was going to destroy the economy and cost us millions of jobs.
And none of that has turned out to be true.
Instead of admitting he was wrong, O'Reilly continues to lie to the American people and tell them Obama is a failure and the economy is in chaos, when everyone with a working brain can clearly see O'Reilly is wrong. Then he has the nerve to complain about people not being informed enough to vote, while he is giving them bad information.
O'Reilly Friend Ben Carson's Campaign Is Falling Apart
By: Steve - June 8, 2015 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly has totally ignored the story, because he is a Republican, if he were a Democrat, O'Reilly would be all over it.
Barely over a month after launching his presidential campaign, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has lost his campaign chairman, his national finance chairman, his deputy campaign manager and his general counsel.
The four senior advisers all quit the campaign, which has fallen into disarray due to dysfunctional leadership, a lack of professionalism and frequent in-fighting.
No replacements have been found to fill the four vacated senior positions, and the leadership vacuum in the Carson campaign has been compounded by a conflict between two pro-Carson super PACs.
The two super PACs, Run Ben Run and One Vote, have been fighting to solicit donations from the same pool of donors. Carson supporters have expressed growing concerns that the Super PACs political turf war is jeopardizing the campaign's ability to mobilize supporters.
Carson's name is a huge draw in right-wing circles so the super PACs understandably are generating a lot of money by being associated with the retired neurosurgeon. However, the competing super PACs have created confusion for Carson supporters.
Run Ben Run has been labeled a "rogue outfit" by some in the Carson campaign, and Carson spokesperson Doug Watts told The Washington Post:
We spend a great deal of time explaining to our supporters, 'They’re them, we're us'.The remaining Carson staff has tried to spin the campaign departures as a positive sign, by arguing that Ben Carson is not a typical politician. Carson confidant Armstrong Williams said this:
Dr. Carson doesn't get involved in the minutia. You have to understand his personality. He's informed, but this whole process is new to him, and he's relying on the judgment of others.
The problem for Carson is that he is running out of others to rely on.
The bottom line is that while Carson excites a certain segment of the GOP Tea Party base, he apparently lacks the managerial skills to run a competent campaign.
This also raises the obvious question: If Ben Carson can't even run a campaign operation for one month, why would anyone trust him to run an entire country for four years? The good news is, with his campaign in disarray, the odds are Americans won't have to worry about Ben Carson ever setting foot in the White House.
Note To Bill O'Reilly: The Economy Is Not Contracting
By: Steve - June 7, 2015 - 11:30am
Last Tuesday the dishonest right-wing idiot Bill O'Reilly said liberals are mad because Obama is a failure and the economy is contracting, both of which are flat out lies, and here is more proof he is a liar.
Missouri Gov. Nixon Vetoes Right-To-Work Legislation
By: Steve - June 7, 2015 - 11:00am
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a measure Thursday that would have made Missouri the 26th right-to-work state, but it's not clear if proponents will be able to get enough support in the Republican-led Legislature to override the veto.
The governor, a longtime opponent of the effort, traveled to the Kansas City area to announce the veto among local United Auto Workers union members near a Ford assembly plant.
The bill would have barred workplace contracts that require all employees -- even those who aren't union members -- to pay union fees.
Most of the Missouri's eight neighboring states already have right-to-work laws; the only two that don't are Illinois and Kentucky. Republican legislators and governors in the Midwestern states Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin all enacted right-to-work laws in the past three years, by Republicans.
And btw folks, if you think right-to-work laws are a good thing, you would be wrong, because in the economic recovery the non right-to-work states have created more jobs than the right-to-work states, which is just another thing O'Reilly and the Republicans do not tell you.
Insane Bill O'Reilly Claims The Economy Is Contracting
By: Steve - June 7, 2015 - 10:00am
Tuesday night the right-wing partisan Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "The American economy is contracting and the chaos overseas is clear to everybody except Mr. Obama."So it's official, Bill O'Reilly is a lying right-wing idiot. Because the economy is doing great, it is not contracting, it is growing and expanding. The stock market is up, wages are up, jobs are up, and unemployment is down.
In fact, the Obama economy just set a record for job growth and for the number of months in a row we had positive job numbers. The economy is doing fine, and the chaos overseas was mostly cause by Bush. Not to mention the majority of American people do not want us to get involved in the problems in foreign countries. But O'Reilly does not tell you any of that.
Virtually every economic measure we have is on the rise, proving that Bill O'Reilly is not a truth teller, he is a biased liar.
More Proof Bill O'Reilly Is A Dishonest Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - June 6, 2015 - 11:00am
A couple nights ago O'Reilly said Obama is a failure and the economy is a disaster, which is not only a lie, it's a ridiculous lie. Because Obama is doing good and the economy is also doing good. The only people who think Obama is a failure are biased partisan Republicans, the rest of the country thinks Obama is doing a pretty good job.
And here is a report that proves it, but of course O'Reilly ignored it, because it proves he is wrong.
The Obama Economy Sets A New Record: 63rd Consecutive Month of Private Sector Job Growth
May marks a new record for President Obama's private sector job growth record, with the private sector adding 12.6 million jobs over 63 straight months of job growth.
The Department of Labor announced Friday morning that the economy added 280,000 jobs. With businesses adding 262,000 jobs, this represents the 63rd consecutive month of private sector job growth.
Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, broke down the employment situation in May:
The private sector has added 12.6 million jobs over 63 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record. Today we learned that private-sector employment rose by 262,000 in May.Other key points in Furman's report were:
1. Manufacturing employment is up strongly as compared with the previous business cycle, while construction employment still has not recovered.
2. More highly educated Americans participate more in the labor force at all ages, and, compared with less educated workers, their participation does not drop off until much older ages.
3. The distribution of job growth across industries in May was highly consistent with the pattern observed over the past year.
4. The majority of industries experienced stronger job growth in May than they have on average over the past year.
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi remarked in a statement that she was pleased with the longest uninterrupted stretch of private sector job growth, but the "Republicans constant culture of crisis continues to cast a shadow over our economy and the future of hard-working families."
Pelosi urged Republicans to get to work, especially noting that the Highway and Transit Trust fund will be expiring in the middle of summer construction season but Republicans still have no plans to act and are endangering 700,000 jobs across the country.
PELOSI: "With only 12 legislative days remaining before the Export-Import Bank's charter expires, Republicans still refuse to reauthorize the bank that supports thousands of American businesses and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Time is also swiftly running out before the Highway and Transit Trust fund expires in the middle of the summer construction season, but Republicans still have no plan to act -- endangering thousands of vital construction projects and nearly 700,000 jobs across the country."
Jason Furman summed it up with a statement making the case for raising the minimum wage and getting rid of the sequester, among other administration pushes:
We have now added 5.6 million jobs over the past two years, the best two-year job growth since 2000. Although the job market has made considerable progress throughout this recovery, challenges remain for our economy and there is more work to do.
The President is committed to extending the positive underlying trends through a comprehensive agenda to boost employment and wages for the middle class, including opening new markets for U.S. goods and services through expanded trade, increasing investments in infrastructure, providing relief from the sequester, and raising the minimum wage.
President Obama, has presided over the longest uninterrupted stretch of private sector job growth on record.
While in Congress, Republicans can't even extend or pass the most basic of legislation let alone take care of the people with any attempt to create decent jobs.
Open Carry Of Loaded Assault Rifle Legal In Atlanta
By: Steve - June 6, 2015 - 10:00am
When travelers and airport staff at Atlanta International Aiport saw Jim Cooley, they grew concerned. Not because the Georgia native and his wife were dropping off their daughter, things like that happen all the time at airports.
Everyone was freaking out because Cooley was carrying a fully-loaded AR-15.
As a result, Cooley was approached by airport staff and security on numerous occasions, all of which he documented and published online.
Why? Because, as Cooley told WSB-TV Atlanta, "You can carry in unsecured areas of the airport. Past TSA, never."
That's right folks. Cooley's open carry possession of a loaded assault rifle was completely legal.
Fox News Spent Less Than 90 Seconds On The Josh Duggar Scandal
By: Steve - June 4, 2015 - 11:00am
If you follow the news you are well aware of the scandal surrounding 19 Kids and Counting reality television star Josh Duggar admitting to being a sexual predator. Unless you watch Fox for your news, because if you watch Fox and you were not watching during their total of 1 minute and 20 seconds of reporting, you would have missed it.
Normally this probably would not have been a story that makes national headlines, except the Duggar family are well-known anti-gay bigots, and Josh Duggar was a prominent member of the pro-life far-right Family Research Council before resigning after the scandal broke. The FRC, as most of us know, is a group that's well-known for opposing equality for gay Americans, and listed as a hate group at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
So, what would normally have been a one or two day story that was soon forgotten, suddenly became a fairly large national story considering the hypocrisy that comes along with someone who's said that homosexuals are dangerous to children -- later admitting that he himself is a sexual predator.
This was a big national story for practically every media outlet -- except Fox News. The day the story broke, Fox News sent out exactly one tweet about it and didn't post a link to the story on their Facebook page until close to midnight Eastern time. At the time, Fox News had not done a single mention of the story anywhere on the network.
Thanks to Media Matters putting together the data, during the 4-day span when the story was at its peak, the conservative entertainment network devoted a combined 1 minute and 20 seconds to covering a prominent member of a conservative lobbyist group admitting to disgusting inappropriate contact with children. That's shorter than the average commercial break.
Talk about a total disregard for journalistic integrity (not that anyone assumed Fox News had any to begin with), but for a major cable news network to blatantly try to suppress a story that was literally everywhere is despicable. And it's not like these were some unproven allegations being tossed his way that could have been spun into liberal attacks, he admitted to doing this.
Oh, but it's okay. Because after basically ignoring the story altogether, Fox News is now going to allow the Duggars to come on the network for what I'm sure will be a softball interview where they'll basically be allowed to try to excuse their son's disgusting behavior.
Nothing quite like ignoring a major story involving a prominent member of a large conservative lobbyist group, only to turn around and give the family of that sick individual a free pass to come on your network and try to tell the country why the molester really isn't a bad person and how it all "brought them closer to God."
If covering up the molestation of family members for at least a year brings you closer to God, your God is really messed up and it damn sure isn't the God in which real Christians believe. And I've still yet to have anyone tell me how those children weren't taken away from that home.
How do two parents admit that they covered up their younger children being abused by an older sibling and literally nothing happens to them? But none of this is surprising. As we all know, Fox News isn't really a legitimate news channel. It's just a giant network devoted to promoting the Republican party, defneding what they do wrong, and producing conservative entertainment.
So, when someone from their side was caught in a deplorable and disgusting act, it shouldn't shock anyone that Fox News did just about all it could to completely ignore the entire story.
Jeb Bush Caught Lying That Brother George Kept Us Safe
By: Steve - June 4, 2015 - 10:00am
This is so ridiculous it's laughable, Jeb Bush, O'Reilly, and all the other Republicans keep saying George W. Bush kept us safe while he was the President, which is a flat out 100% lie.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Sunday said that he's learned from George W. Bush's successes, which include keeping American citizens safe.
Bush added that he asks George W. Bush for advice, and that he's learned from his successes and failures. When asked by Schieffer what he learned from his brother, Bush listed his brother's success protecting the U.S.
"Well, the successes clearly are protecting the homeland. We were under attack, and he brought -- he unified the country and he showed dogged determination. And he kept us safe," Bush said. "And you can talk about a lot of stuff, but when you're president of the United States and you're confronted with that kind of event, to respond the way he did is admirable. And I have learned from that."
Earlier in May, Bush struggled to answer whether he would have invaded Iraq given what he knows now. At first, Bush said he would have authorized the invasion, but he quickly backtracked and said he "would not have gone into Iraq."
And now the facts:
George W. Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 2001. A full 8 months later we were attacked on 9-11-2001 by terrorists who took down the World Trade Center buildings and 3000 people died. This all happened while Bush was the President, and no matter how many Republicans ignore it or lie about it, they can not change history.
And it happened after Bush got a memo about terrorism, saying this: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.
That was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday, August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.
And Bush did nothing, he ignored it, no warning to airports, no extra security on the planes, no nothing. Jeb Bush and the rest of these idiots keep saying he kept us safe, which is just laughable. And if a Democratic President had done the same thing the Republicans would have called for his impeachment and had him put in prison for life.
When a Republican does it, they ignore it and rewrite history to claim the moron kept us safe, which is just laughable.
It's Official: O'Reilly Is The Biggest Liar In America
By: Steve - June 3, 2015 - 11:30am
The insane Bill O'Reilly is now saying liberals are attacking the Republicans running for the White House because they are mad that Obama is a failure. Which is just laughable, because half the country approves of the job Obama is doing, and it's only the right-wingers like O'Reilly, who think he has been a failure.
O'Reilly said there's a lot of anger amongst liberals who just can't handle being told that President Obama's presidency has been a failure.
To O'Reilly, liberals are lashing out at conservatives with serious anger because they can't handle coming to terms with that. And this apparently applies to Hillary Clinton too.
As far as O'Reilly is concerned, liberals will "launch vicious attacks on whomever the Republican nominee will be" with increasing anger as more and more scandals start bubbling up around the Clintons.
He warned that if this continues, the 2016 election will end up being the ugliest in recent memory.
Which ignores all reality, that most of the scandals he talks about are made up by him and the GOP, and that the country is doing great by all measures. The economy is doing great, the stock market is at record highs, jobs are back, unemployment is down, gas prices are low, and on and on. So where is the failure, I can not find it.
And notice that O'Reilly never mentions all the vicious attacks conservatives do on liberals. Somehow it's only liberals who attack conservatives, which is not reality.
O'Reilly is just an old right-wing fool that can not stand the fact that Hillary is most likely going to be the next President.
Study Finds Limbaugh, Beck, & Hannity More Distrusted Than Trusted
By: Steve - June 3, 2015 - 11:00am
Pew Study: Right-Wing Radio Shows Among Most Distrusted Sources Of News.
Study Finds Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, And Sean Hannity More Distrusted Than Trusted Among All Generations.
A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck's talk radio shows are more distrusted than trusted among three generations surveyed by Pew.
Pew surveyed millennials, Generation Xers, and baby boomers on political news sources and how each generation trusted them. The study published on June 1st found that "Four sources are distrusted more than trusted by all three: The Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, and BuzzFeed."
Right-wing outlets have a history of misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric. Radio host Rush Limbaugh has increasingly faced backlash from advertisers and radio stations because of his false and inflammatory rhetoric, including calling law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" in 2012.
Fox News host and radio personality Sean Hannity regularly makes racist and sexist remarks and in April reported questionable claims about terrorists to stoke fears about immigration.
And Glenn Beck has a history of violent and inflammatory rhetoric including outlandish conspiracy theories which eventually forced him off of his Fox News show.
Chris Hayes Debunks O'Reilly's Claim That Police Violence Is Made Up
By: Steve - June 3, 2015 - 10:00am
Hayes said this: "When It Comes To Unarmed People Killed By Police," Studies Find A "Troubling Racial Disparity"
Republican Governor Loses His Mind Over Death Penalty Repeal
By: Steve - June 2, 2015 - 11:00am
And where is O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found. O'Reilly claims to be against the death penalty and then you have this nut of a Governor trying to import illegal drugs from India to kill 10 people on death row, after the state banned the death penalty, and O'Reilly is silent.
A push to execute 10 condemned men despite the repeal of Nebraska's death penalty was confronted with yet another hurdle Friday when a federal agency said the state cannot import a critical lethal injection drug.
Governor Pete Ricketts (R) said he agrees with the attorney general that Nebraska should be able to execute its death row inmates upon receiving the drugs it recently bought from a broker in India.
The state has already paid $54,400 to replace two lethal injection drugs that had expired.
"Our plan is to proceed with the executions," the governor said Friday during a press conference that marked the end of the 2015 legislative session.
In the 18 other states that have repealed capital punishment, no death row inmates have been subsequently executed, said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
Nebraska's legislature voted to repeal the death penalty on a 30-19 vote Wednesday. Republican Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the death penalty repeal bill, but the legislature overrode his veto with no extra votes to spare. 30 votes are needed to override a Governor's veto in Nebraska.
While the initial measure had reached the Governor's desk with a veto-proof 32 votes, two lawmakers defected to the Governor's side, making the final vote perilously close.
Nebraska joins 18 other U.S. states and the District of Columbia in banning the death penalty. However, it becomes the first Republican state to do so since North Dakota abolished its death penalty in 1973. A handful of blue states -- Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico and New Jersey -- have also abolished the death penalty in the last eight years.
Governor Ricketts expressed outrage at the veto override. He angrily tweeted:
"RICKETTS: My words cannot express how appalled I am that we have lost a critical tool to protect law enforcement and Nebraska families."
For death penalty opponent Senator Ernie Chambers, however, the Wednesday victory was a crowning achievement, after over three decades of working to repeal the death penalty in Nebraska. Chambers had tasted victory once before in 1979 when he also helped pass a repeal measure, but then the Nebraska legislature upheld Republican Governor Charles Thone's veto.
This time Chambers was able to prevail, with just enough votes from the legislature to overturn Governor Ricketts veto.
Defeating the death penalty in Nebraska required the cooperation of liberal, moderate and conservative lawmakers. While the lawmakers may have had very different reasons for wanting to abolish the state's death penalty, they were able to work together to forge a coalition that not only passed the bill, but also had sufficient votes to override Governor Ricketts veto.
In the process, Nebraska's legislature demonstrated how lawmakers from different ideological camps can come together to form alliances capable of passing meaningful reform.
And btw folks, the death penalty does not work, because the murder rates in non-death penalty states are the same as in death penalty states. So when you hear these right-wing nuts tell you that you will not be protected if they do not put people to death, it's all a lie. And putting someone in prison for life with no parole also protects you the same as putting them to death.
Fox News Ignoring Rand Paul In It's Polling Coverage
By: Steve - June 2, 2015 - 10:00am
And it did not just happen once or twice, it happened three times, then they claimed was a simple program error, which is just laughable. Once is an error, three times is on purpose.
Last week Fox News did not include Sen. Rand Paul in their coverage of a new 2016 presidential poll, even though the senator outperformed other candidates mentioned and the survey cited made Paul a significant part of their original headline.
Quinnipiac released a poll today featuring the headline "Five Leaders In 2016 Republican White House Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Rubio, Paul Are Only Republicans Even Close To Clinton." So his name was even in the headline of the poll, and yet in Fox News coverage, Paul apparently didn't register enough to justify being shown on the broadcast of the poll.
In the poll, Rand Paul polled at 7 percent, ahead of Sen. Ted Cruz who received 6 percent. But Cruz was featured in Fox News coverage of the poll.
Instead of mentioning Rand Paul's (7%) competitiveness against Hillary Clinton (Paul and Rubio paired better against the former Secretary of State than any other Republicans), Fox left Paul's name out to focus on lower-tier performers Donald Trump and John Kasich, who were at 5% and 2%.
MSNBC covered the same Quinnipiac poll on Thursday, but included the full top seven performers, including Paul, who was one spot ahead of Cruz.
For those who are unfamiliar with this tendency of pretending Paul does not exist in Fox News poll coverage, two weeks ago, the news channel conducted an in-house poll that pitted 2016 Republican hopefuls against Hillary Clinton.
Somehow, the (so-called fair and balanced) news agency failed to ask poll participants their opinions on a Paul v. Clinton match-up and left him off of their poll completely.
Despite this Fox News survey blackout, Paul polled significantly higher against Hillary Clinton in states such as New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa.
And that's not all, in early May Fox News put Paul's name last even though he was the highest polling candidate among the four featured. They had a graphic on the screen with Bush, Rubio, and Walker ahead of Paul, even though Paul was #1 at 44%, Bush and Rubio were at 43%, and Walker was at 40%.
This is no accident, or a simple program error. It is a planned pattern of trying to downplay (or totally ignore) Rand Paul at Fox News. Because they support the more mainstream (for Fox) candidates like Bush, Cruz, and Walker. And Paul is seen as a little crazy, so they are trying to ignore him.
So much for fair and balanced journalism, and he is a conservative, just imagine what they are doing to liberals.
Jon Stewart Slams Media For Terrible Reporting On Bernie Sanders
By: Steve - June 1, 2015 - 11:00am
Before Senator Bernie Sanders even formally announced his campaign for president, he was dismissed by many in the media as unelectable and too radical," especially since he openly calls himself a socialist -- a term Republicans have been incorrectly applying to President Obama who's actually closer to a centrist Republican than they will admit.
People have been calling Sanders ideas crazy and have worried that he would split the vote in the general election like Ralph Nader did in 2000, without realizing that he's running for the Democratic nomination, not as a third-party candidate as Nader did.
Last night, Jon Stewart took apart those talking points and explained how Bernie Sanders is far from being crazy, especially when compared to the types of candidates Republicans have fielded in the past (and continue to field today).
He pointed out Herman Cain's bizarre "aww, shucky ducky" comment during a rally in 2012, and when you think about it, Herman Cain's whole campaign reminds me of that time when that one strange uncle had too much champagne at a wedding and embarrassed everyone.
Breaking up the big banks, equal pay for women, campaign finance reform and expanding Social Security benefits (along with other proposals Bernie Sanders has put forth) sure don't sound like insane ideas to me. In fact, those are great ideas that nobody is really talking about -- not even Hillary Clinton.
As I have said many times, I will vote for Hillary Clinton over anyone the Republicans will offer as their candidate in the general election, but let's stop pretending that Bernie Sanders is some sort of bizarre left-wing kook who has no business in the race or that he's somehow going to cost Hillary Clinton the general election, because he's not.
The other issue not mentioned on the program which has drawn a lot of criticism is the fact Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation that would make higher education free.
While a repeated objection to it is that we already have a ton of debt, unlike the wars we keep finding ourselves involved in, his plan would make free higher education paid for by a tax on Wall Street multi-millionaires and billionaires -- which isn't making Republicans too happy.
He opposed the TPP trade deal, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren, an issue that stakes him out to the left of President Obama who is receiving support from Republicans on this legislation. Bernie Sanders already has a very active subreddit on Reddit, and has doubled his ranking in the polls in just one month, despite being relatively unknown compared to Hillary Clinton.
He has also refused to take corporate money and has relied on small donations instead, something no other candidate has done. There are some borderline insane people with some horrible, radical ideas like Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz who are running for president in 2016, but Bernie Sanders is certainly not one of them.
Rand Paul Admits ISIS Created Because Of GOP Hawks
By: Steve - June 1, 2015 - 10:00am
And as usual O'Reilly never reported a word about it, because him and some of his right-wing friends want to blame it on Obama, while claiming to be fair to Obama, which is just laughable.
Republican Senator and 2016 candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Morning Joe Wednesday that the policies of George W. Bush and the far-right hawks in his party were mostly responsible for the rise of ISIS, the Sunni militants currently marauding across Syria and Iraq.
"Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would say, ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said let's not go into Syria," host Joe Scarborough asked.
"I would say it's exactly the opposite," Paul said. "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS job even easier. They created these people."
"ISIS is all over Libya, because these saying hawks in my party, they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya, they just wanted more of it," he continued.
"So everything they've talked about in foreign policy they've been wrong about for 20 years, yet they somehow have the gall to point the finger otherwise."
And btw folks, terrorism has increased since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney illegally invaded Iraq, which is the opposite of what they said would happen, including O'Reilly, who supported the Bush administration and the Iraq war.
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com