Talking Points Memo

Running Down the Tedious Impeachment Hearings

2019-11-20T14:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here, and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So today's impeachment hearings were tedious, boring. I had to get up three or four times, you know, because my eyes were getting heavy. So, last week, the hearings were a fiasco and this week, they're tedious. There is a change, by the way, in the Democrat's main high crime and misdemeanor. It's now bribery. Last week it was abuse of power, now it's shifted to bribery. So let's run it down.

So there was a woman named Jennifer Williams, who was an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on foreign affairs, and Ms. Williams was there and said absolutely nothing, nothing. I can't remember one thing the woman said. She doesn't like Donald Trump, alright because she's a careerist. She's not... Pence just hired her because she has a lot of experience. She clearly didn't like him, didn't like the phone call or whatever, but did she see anything, do anything? No. Maybe 20 percent of the questions were directed to her.

The others, 80 percent were to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who's a Ukraine expert, and he's on the National Security Council. Okay, so I don't think you attack Colonel Vindman, he was wounded in Iraq in 2004. He is from Ukraine, born there, immigrated with his family to the USA. He looks to me like a patriotic guy. However again, he doesn't like Donald Trump and he's buying into the theory that the president withheld aid to Ukraine, his home country, because you want dirt on Joe Biden for political purposes. That's the narrative. So that's what these people believe.

Now, as Americans, they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. You want to believe that President Trump withheld foreign aid to a foreign country because of personal benefit? Go believe it, but there is no evidence of that, because once Ms. Williams and Colonel Vindman were cross-examined by the Republican Congress people on the Intel Committee, it was clear they had no blanking idea that the US federal government is investigating corruption in 2016 that may have involved Ukraine. It's possible the allegation is that elements within Ukraine attempted to subvert our election on behalf of the Democrats. That is the allegation.

So, as the chief law enforcement officer of the country, President Trump has a perfect right to ask any head of state involved in an legitimate investigation, again it is under way, to cooperate, do me a favor. And who's right in the middle of that investigation? Joe Biden. Yes. It happens to be, he is a political rival to Donald Trump and the optics don't look good, right? They don't look great, but the defense is, hey, he's vice president at the time of the alleged involvement with Ukraine and Biden was over there twelve times. So if Biden was doing anything wrong on behalf of his son or anybody else, you have to know that and I assume the Justice Department will find it out.

So by Trump asking for the new president of Ukraine to cooperate in the investigation, that's not a crime of any magnitude at all. In fact, you can say that's a good thing. He should have done it. If Biden was doing something corrupt, it should be known. Now, this whole thing is a farce and the American people know it. Twenty percent of the American people are following impeachment closely, and that means if you're not following it closely, you don't know what's going on because the press doesn't report honestly about it. All they do is give you a sensational headline, a click bait thing on the internet. Then when you read the article, as I did today with the Associated Press and Reuters encapsulation of what happened, the article was even more boring than the actual testimony. There is nothing there. So what is it? What are you trying to say the president, United States did?

So this whole thing is going to go away, as I predicted. President Trump is not going to be removed. He should stay out of it at this point, not tweet anything about it. Just say, look, it's farce I've done. I'm done with it. Let the process unfold because the process is going to go to the Senate and it's going to die there.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you again soon.

The End Game of this Impeachment Inquiry: President Trump Will Remain in Office

2019-11-13T14:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here with the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So we got impeachment coming up tomorrow, the inquiry. Three House committees will be interviewing tomorrow two anti Trump people, they are essentially anti Trump people. One is a swamp creature in the State Department from 1992.

The other was an acting ambassador to Ukraine and they don't like Donald Trump. A lot of people don't like Donald Trump in Washington, even in his own administration, because the guy just governs the way wants outside of the accepted purview of presidents. We all understand that.

This should not be happening, this impeachment inquiry, it doesn't do the country any good at all. If you don't like Donald Trump and you feel he's a bad president, don't vote for him a year from now. But on and on and on and on about Russian collusion, about Ukraine phone call, it's bull.

All right. This is garbage. Most Americans know it. You know, I wish I could go down there and say, stop, concentrate on November 2020. You don't like them, don't vote for him.

Now, if you look back about the impeachment process in America, the first time it was used was Andrew Johnson. Now, after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, Andrew Johnson as Vice president, took over. Johnson was a drunk. Former governor of Tennessee, not a smart man at all.

Lincoln put him on the ticket because anticipating after the Civil War to get the South to calm down, he'd have to have a southern presence and that's why Johnson replaced Hannibal Hamlin of Maine.

So, Johnson gets the presidency because Lincoln's dead and doesn't know what he's doing and really doesn't care. The swamp creatures in the Lincoln administration elsewhere go, this is appalling. Gotta get this guy out of here because he doesn't know what he's doing.

So the impeachment was kind of trumped up, pardon the pun, against Johnson, but he survived it by one vote in the Senate. But it's murky, murky.

Then you go to Nixon. Nixon resigned because he would have been impeached. What happened to Nixon, just a fast recall, many of you know, but some of you are young and don't. His reelection committee, authorized a group called the Plumbers to break into Democratic National Committee headquarters, at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, which they did. They were looking around for dirt in the files and they got caught.

Now, did Nixon know about that operation? Nobody knows. Nixon says he didn't but, you know, so nobody really knows. But even if he didn't know about it, he learned about it after these guys got caught and then he started to cover up and destroy evidence. He can't do that. It's a crime. Nixon got caught, you know, went on and on and on and finally, Nixon with the tapes and everything else, he's guilty. He had to leave.

Clinton. Clinton did a variety of things that he was chased by the civil authorities for, mostly with women. Then there was Whitewater and a whole bunch of stuff before he got to the presidency. Apparently there was enough evidence to show that Bill Clinton lied under oath about Paula Jones and a few other things. Then he lied to the American people about Monica Lewinsky.

So everybody knew that he wasn't telling the truth, that he was a dishonest guy, Bill Clinton. But he didn't get convicted by the Senate because his actions didn't rise, so that two thirds of the Senate wanted to boot him out and that's about an election. Okay? That's what that's about.

Now, I would not, had I been a senator, voted to boot out Bill Clinton because of a Paula Jones stuff and the Monica Lewinsky stuff. It's bad, but does it rise to that level of kicking a president out of office? Probably not.

Now, we have Trump who is not even close to Nixon and Clinton. It's not even close. This is, even if he did the worst case scenario, conjured up something that Ukraine would drop on Joe Biden, a political opponent.

He did that. It's not close to be, get him out of there. It's not close and Trump has good defense. Look, I think that Ukraine's got to come clean about possible corruption in the election 2016. I asked him to do that, Biden and everybody else.

That's a very valid defense.

All right, so there's no way on earth that Trump's going to get booted out of there. This is just politics, this impeachment thing. Now, I have to watch it because that's my job. That's what I get paid to do.

All right, but if I wasn't getting paid to do it, I would watch a little of it, but not a lot. I know what it's going to be and I know what the end game is. Donald Trump will remain as president until next November, as it should be.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you soon.

Impeachment and the Weak 2020 Dem Field

2019-11-06T14:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here, and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

Let's assess where the Democrats are in putting forth candidates to run against Donald Trump. One of the reasons that impeachment has been embraced by Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, is because the party does not believe it has a strong candidate to go up against Donald Trump in 2020.

There is no Bill Clinton. There is no Barack Obama. There is no Hillary Clinton, who turned out not to be a good campaigner, but had name recognition and support.

So, Beto O'Rourke dropped out this week. He was the nastiest and most radical, if you can believe it, of all of them. He was polling after all the millions of dollars that he spent, something like 21 million, one point six percent. That's how nasty and far left he was. Bye Beto, you've ruined your political career and that's good.

Now, Castro, the other radical from south Texas, he's polling at zero point six percent. He's trying to hang on to get into the November debate in a couple of weeks, it's not going to happen. He is not going to get into the debate. So it's bye bye to the two radicals. He'll be out soon.

Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota, polling at one point nine percent, and again, she spent millions and millions of dollars and nobody's responding to what she's doing. Now, again, she wants to get in the debate. Remember, these people all have agendas, and the agenda is, if I get famous, I can make money, speeches, books, that kind of thing. What else does she have to do, Amy Klobuchar? She is a senator from Minnesota.

Democrats aren't doing anything as far as legislation is concerned. They want to impeach the president, get him out. That's all they're doing. The next guy is Pete Buttigieg, who is polling at 7 percent, which is pretty good for a small town mayor. In Iowa, he's gaining traction. So Buttigieg is going to baround.

Kamala Harris, they thought was going gonna be a star. She has failed dismally on the campaign trail, polling a three point five percent, again after spending millions and millions of dollars. She's pulled her crew out of New Hampshire, which is the death knell. You can't pull your crew out of New Hampshire, first primary in January.

So she's going and that leaves us with a three, what they call viable candidates, but Bernie Sanders is not viable. Alright, so he is down at 17 percent lower than he was running against Hillary Clinton four years ago. The senator is a tired guy. He's had a heart attack. I'm mean thats pretty, and I give him credit. I mean, he snapped back fast from the heart attack, but he's old. He's an old guy and his message is the same as it's always been. Not going to get more than 17 percent, Bernie, of your own party.

The Democrats know that Bernie Sanders doesn't have a chance. So the real far lefties have come over to Elizabeth Warren, who's now getting eviscerated because her vision of the country, bankrupting pretty much every fossil fuel company, putting insurance companies out of business, would lead to a national depression, not a recession, a depression. Her spending on Medicare for all, baby sitters for all. I mean, free education, we will pay your debt. It's insane and everybody knows it.

There was an editorial in The Wall Street Journal that just laid out how her economic vision can't possibly happen. Not enough money in the country to fund what she wants to fund.

21 percent and Biden, 29 percent. Now, these percentages all come from RealClearPolitics.com, they do a summation of all the polls. So that's where these stats are coming from. So Biden, you know, a pretty healthy lead and I continue to say he will get the nomination unless somebody else comes in, but he's taking a pounding over Ukraine and don't think this message hasn't gotten out, it has, it is out. Biden is an old time, he's a patronage guy. He did some things to enrich his family, particularly his son, Hunter, that he should not have done. You know, on the stage, Biden, Trump.

I watched Biden debate, what's her name? The former governor of Alaska? I can't believe it. Sarah Palin. Talk about being old. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, remember that debate? Biden didn't beat her. Sarah held her own. Biden... Trump, but I still think that Biden is got the best shot.

So, when you're faced with that and you are the Democratic Party power brokers, the money men, the high up DNC people, you got to get trust before the election, and that's what's going on.

I'm Bill O'Reilly, that is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax. We will see you soon.

The Real Reason Democrats Are Driving Impeachment

2019-10-30T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

We get a lot of mail and one of the most common questions asked is, if the Democrats don't have a crime, why are they bothering to go through impeachment? So, fair minded individuals watching the news will say, all right, you're having hearings, impeachment inquiries, trying to get a crime. You don't have a crime already because if you did, you wouldn't have to inquire, right?

So they didn't have to have an inquiry about Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon because there were clear crimes. Watergate was a crime. Clinton lied under oath. So, yes, that's absolutely right and a very good question to ask, the answer is there is a reason, a political reason why the Democrats are going through this impeachment process in the House.

Now, the most obvious reason is they want to damage Donald Trump, but all the polls say that Trump supporters are maintaining their enthusiasm for the president. It's about 85% of Republicans say, look, we support him and impeachment is not going to change that.

But here's the real reason Democrats are driving impeachment.

It keeps their presidential candidates and their platform off the news. Repeat that, by diverting into impeachment and making the news concentrate on that, you don't get an analysis of what the Democrats really stand for.

Now, you do hear it in the debates and we did hear it and it was crazy socialism, everything free, Medicare for all, free tuition, on and on and on. We'll seize your guns, that's Beto O'Rourke. You shouldn't have, churches shouldn't have the right to dissent from gay marriage, you'll lose your tax exempt status, that again, Beto O'Rourke, who is the most radical of the crew.

But all the other Democrats are...they're going, they're not objecting to any of that and when asked, would you pay the illegal aliens medical bills? Everybody goes, yes. Everybody on the Democratic side.

All of these are very radical opinions and radical programs. Most Americans don't follow the news very clearly. They are diverted by the machines, by their own work habits. They're not zoning in.

If you look at the cable news audience, it's about four to five million on all of them, on every cable news outfit. Four or five million. There are three hundred and thirty million people in this country. Nightly News, same thing. Nightly News down about between, among the three, 14 million people, maybe less.

So, most folks have no blanking clue what's going on but if the Democratic candidates were out there and saying every day we want taxation to the highest level possible, we want to seize assets through a wealth tax, this would start to get through. It's not through now.

If you go to the mall and ask people to name four Democrats running for president, maybe they get Biden, maybe. Maybe they get Sanders, probably not. So people don't know. I mean, alert people like you, watching Newsmax, yeah, you're watching for news consumption. You want information, but not everybody is like you.

So, the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and you haven't heard a lot from Chuck. Chuck has been very quiet. They know, look, we don't really have a strong candidate like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. We don't have one of those.

All right. None of these people are going to capture the imagination of the American voter. None of them. Which is why Biden will probably wind up with the nomination, because he's the best known and he can attach himself to the good old Obama days, and for the Democrats, they were the good old days.

You got to remember, that party loves Barack Obama to this day. Now, I don't think his economic policies, foreign policy were very good for the country. But I do admire that Barack Obama ran the administration fairly consistently. There weren't any scandals, I mean, there were, but they weren't huge.

The only thing that can change my opinion is if the Justice Department finds out that President Obama was behind some of this 2016 campaign corruption, and that is possible. Keeping a close eye on that.

So anyway, to to sum up, impeachment is going nowhere. The Senate will not convict the president and remove him. The Democrats don't care. They know that's probably the way it's going to play out.

There's going to be an acquittal in the Senate, but all the time they spend on impeachment, masks, covers what's really going on inside the Democratic Party, which is radicalism and chaos.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. That is a Talking Points Memo. Please go to BillOReilly.com, if you'd like to see more of my analysis. We will see you soon.

Impeachment Propaganda: A Disservice to America

2019-10-23T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

Okay, on this impeachment thing, I've had enough of the propaganda. All right. I think you probably have had enough of it, too. You turn on TV news and you're not getting the truth. You're not getting any perspective. You're not getting anything.

So here's what it comes down to. There are two sides to this issue about Ukraine. One side says President Trump threatened the president of Ukraine with withholding U.S. funds, that had been appropriated by Congress, unless the president did some kind of investigation on Joe Biden. That's the Democrat assertion, allegation.

The other side, President Trump's side, says no, that didn't happen. What occurred in the phone call that the president made to Ukraine was that President Trump, as his job dictates, remember he's the chief law enforcement officer in America, asked the Ukrainian leader to cooperate in a corruption investigation of the 2016 presidential campaign, which is underway by the Justice Department.

Now, the president made a mistake by inserting his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, into that phone call, he should not have done it. But that's not a crime, it's not impeachable. It's a mistake. So once again, the president asserts that he was asking a foreign nations cooperation in a wide ranging corruption investigation that may include vise President Biden and it is within his rights as a president to do that.

So those are the two sides. You're not going to convince anybody one way or the other. If you don't like Trump, you're going to say he tried to threaten and bully the Ukrainian leader. If you support the president, you're going to say he was totally within his bounds of his constitutional authority. That's it. Now, the evidence which comprises the phone call, which was transcribed, does not show a crime.

The whistle blower or blowers have disappeared. They're disappeared because at least the first one has ties to Joe Biden, it looks like. That he's worked with the former vice president, the whistleblower has. I don't know that for a fact, but that is what is being reported. I can't confirm it on the record, but I do believe it.

So the whistleblower, he's gone. All right. So what the Democrats in the House have done, is that we've shifted from very specific testimony about an alleged crime, I don't know, violation the constitution, to an abuse of power. We're going to impeach the president on an abuse of power. You're going to impeach every president from George Washington on, on an abuse of power. Everyone.

You can say, oh, he overstepped his authority. He did this. He shouldn't have done that. You can't do it. If you do that and remove a president, no president can ever serve because every president, if they don't control the House, if the party doesn't control the House, will be impeached. Why not? Why not?

So what's likely to come here is this, again, the two sides are never going to even entertain the other opinion. They are not going to do it. The country is divided. The House will probably have some kind of vote. They don't want to stretch it out, maybe early 2020. It'll go to the Senate. Mitch McConnell. the senate leader will go.. two or three days it will be gone. No conviction. right out the window.

President Trump will then use that and the rush inclusion thing to tell the American people that he should be reelected, because there's so much corruption on the other side, that the Democrats, including the Obama administration, tried to disrupt his campaign and then his presidency. So please vote for me and not for those corrupt people.

On the other side, Democrats will say, oh, he should be convicted....Thats the way its gonna be. So one year, just about one year from now, in a few days, will go to the polls, American people. Hundred and thirty million will go, and anything can happen between now and then. We don't know who's going to run against Donald Trump, that will mean something. Democrats don't really have a strong candidate right now.

But it's pretty much all about Trump. You know, you want four more years of Donald Trump or do you want these people? Quotes, "these people" who tried to get him, and they did, they are. Just tell the truth, they try to get him on anything, anything, and Mr. Trump being as bombastic as he is, makes it pretty easy. If you read the United States of Trump, and I hope you do, you'll see across the board why President Trump does what he does. Why? And it's very important.

That is the Talking Points Memo. You can catch me every night on BillOReilly.com. It's a pleasure to talk to you, Newsmax viewers, and I'll see you again soon.

The Real Story of the Impeachment Madness

2019-10-16T13:00:00Z

Hey Bill O'Reilly here, this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax. The real story of the impeachment madness.

So Democrats believe that President Trump should not be president. That's where we start. So for two years we had the Russian collusion situation and then the special counsel, Robert Mueller after spending 30 million dollars of taxpayer money came back and said, you know there really wasn't any collusion. Obstruction of justice, I don't know and on and on. It was a big nothing.

So Americans said, well all right let's move ahead, President Trump has two more years but the zealots, the anti Trump forces said no way and now they're trying to impeach the president over a phone call he made to the Ukrainian president. I'm not going to get into that because if you're following the news, you know it's just insane. All right.

But the real reason this is happening is about the U.S. Justice Department and a man named John Durham. That's why impeachment is happening. So listen up. Attorney General William Barr appointed Mr. Durham, who is a respected U.S. attorney from Connecticut to investigate the origins and alleged crimes involved by federal agencies in the Russia collusion investigation. Mueller did not do that.

So Mr. Durham is now looking into FBI,CIA, State Department and Department of Defense, those four. The word is that John Durham is accumulating information at a rapid rate. The information says elements within the federal government were determined to ruin the Trump presidency by selective leaks to the press about stuff that may or may not be true.

Now, you know the head of the FBI, James Comey was fired, the assistant head of the FBI McCabe was fired and a whole bunch of other people are suspect. So if Durham comes back and he has the power to indict, so we think there's a grand jury already in place. We don't know for sure. This is ultra ultra secret.

But if Durham comes back with indictments against Comey, McCabe, people in the CIA, people in the State Department under Barack Obama, Department of Defense. If he says they did illegal things, the government's gonna prosecute them. That'll take a while and it'll overlap the presidential election. President Trump can rightly say the government of the United States has indicted former Obama administration officials for trying to upend his administration and his campaign.

Donald Trump can make that a huge campaign theme.

So the anti Trump forces in the media and the Democratic Party cannot allow that to happen without something to balance it. Therefore, you have impeachment. Now I've said from the very beginning there's no crime here. There's no reason that a sitting president, no matter who he was or she was would be removed for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

It's not going to happen. Everybody tries to dig up dirt on their opponents. Now you don't inject a foreign government but President Trump can rightly say, I was looking into corruption attached to the Ukrainian government that influenced the United States. And we know Joe Biden, we know that story.

So there is a legitimacy to the president's position. I can't read his mind. I don't know what his intent was, but certainly what he says his intent was has to be taken seriously.

Now, the other thing about this impeachment thing this week is that all of the testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee is secret. The reason the Democrats are doing that, is they can leak little parts of the testimony out to the press to make it look like President Trump is being hammered in those hearings, when that might not be true.

You're not supposed to leak and that's what Durham is investigating but the congresspeople leak all the time. It's different by the way, with a congressional leak than a FBI CIA leak. It is a different thing. Although you can get trouble if your congressperson leaking in the Ethics Committee, whatever that is.

So summing up, impeachment is being used to blunt the State Department investigation into massive corruption. Trying to undermine the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency. That will be the big story of 2020, in addition to the presidential race and it could help President Trump very much.

That's the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you soon.

Burdening Americans to Pay for More Entitlements

2019-10-09T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. This is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So, on Friday and you may have missed this because it got no coverage at all. President Trump signs a executive order on immigration, legal immigration. In the executive order it says that the United States government is not to admit any foreign national who can not pay for his or her health insurance.

So you either have to have it with you, a health insurance policy from another nation, or you have to demonstrate to immigration authorities that you have enough money to pay for your health.

This was a very interesting deal. I thought there would be an outcry but because of the impeachment and the hate Trump movement, I haven't seen much coverage of anything else.

So this is going to be a major campaign issue because you'll remember that Joe Biden, Corey Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Kamala Harris. Harris was yeah, no, yeah, no. They all said yeah, the American taxpayer should pick up the entire tab for illegal immigrants health care.

Not legal, illegal. So if you sneak in here, the American taxpayer has got to pay all your health. We do that now through the emergency rooms, where if you're in an emergency room in the United States, you get treated.

Even if you can't show that you can pay. They have to treat you by law.

So, the far left basically says they want open borders. They want everybody in here, as we discussed during the Talking Points Memos of the past. The Democratic Party look, we don't want impediments to foreign nationals coming here, and not only that we're going to pay their bills.

50 percent of all immigrant homes, both legal and illegal receive government assistance. Half of them. So Donald Trump says wait a minute, we got a twenty two trillion dollar debt, highest deficit in seven years and part of that his and Republicans fault. But you know how it is, that the Democrats are just going to keep spending spending spending and if you try to draw the line, the government gets shut down and all that, so you know that.

In this executive order now, legal immigrants must pay their health insurance. I think that's fair. I don't want to burden Americans with any more entitlements. Now we pay an enormous amount of entitlements for our own fellow Americans. Now we've got to pay everybody's bills abroad? Come on.

Now, the Democratic Party basically says, we are virtuous. We are noble. We are compassionate, because we want to help poor people. We are Christian. Jesus would help poor people.

That's the line.

That resonates. That resonates and that's why the Democratic Party does this, because in the poor precincts in the United States, people need help and the Democrats are going, we will help you. Not only you, we want to help everybody because we're virtuous people. Whereas that mean O'Reilly and that terrible Republican Party and that heinous Donald Trump, they don't want to help anybody.

There's selfish greed heads. All they want is more more and more for themselves. See that's the positioning of it.

Donald Trump is going to make a big issue in the 2020 campaign of telling the nation look, this party, the Democrats want anarchy. They want no restraints from billions of people coming here all over the world.

If they can get here, any way, they can stay here and we pay their bills. That's what the Democratic Party wants. I mean Joe Biden, that's a real vulnerability for him in a debate with Trump. Biden's on the record. He would pay the medical bills of the illegal aliens and the legal bills too.

Remember, when illegal alien goes into the system, they can't afford a lawyer, most of them. A lawyers appointed, who pays for it? We pay for it. It's on and on and on and on and you wonder why we have a 22 trillion dollar debt?

So, summing up, Americans are going to have to make a decision. Do you want a country that actually works? That's fair? Or do you want a virtuous nation that taxes the hell out of hard working people to pay for every entitlement under the sun?

That is the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you soon.

This Impeachment Thing is Dangerous - Here's What's Going On

2019-10-02T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So everybody is talking about the impeachment thing, right?

I, as a kind of famous guy, I walk around and I'm curious about what the folks think.

I don't care what they think on CNN or Fox. I want to know what the folks think.

So, you know people walk up to me all the time and I say, so what about this impeachment thing?

Then they'll put... you know a pro or anti Trump statement out there and I'll say, what's the crime? Now for the pro Trump people, it's oh there is no crime. But for the anti Trump people, and I divide it up. There's a silence. There is a silence. I said so what are we going through impeachment for? What did the president do on the phone with the Ukraine president?

What did he do. Never get an answer. Nobody knows.

I'm a simple man. That's a simple question. You try it.

What's the crime? There is no crime.

Now, we went over this in great detail on BillOReilly.com and I went over it with Wayne here on Newsmax. The president calls the president of Ukraine and wanted information about a situation he feels might have been corrupt. Mr. Trump is the chief law enforcement officer of the country.

He has the perfect right to do it, and it doesn't matter whether it's a political opponent or somebody who's driving his car.

If he thinks there is corruption, and he does. That's in the United States of Trump. I run right down what he thinks of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and what they tried to do to him. That's at the genesis of all of this.

But anyway, what is the crime? Why are we going through impeachment, which will hurt every American because the economy will go down and very serious issues that should be resolved by Congress will be ignored. Why are we doing it? So I'm promoting the United States of Trump on the radio, right?

I'm doing radio everywhere and I am on with WBAL radio, our affiliate. We do the O'Reilly Update radio program and that's our big affiliate in Baltimore. I'm I'm with a guy named Clarence Mitchell, who is a very smart radio host and he has run for office.

So I go Clarence, and Clarence is not a Trump supporter but he's a fair man.

Clarence, what is the crime?

He says there is no crime but there is an election violation. Now, it's the first time that I ever got anything back like that. I go, that's very interesting, Clarence. Tell me what the election violation is. He says, well if you are running for office, as President Trump is. You cannot solicit help from a foreign country. OK. Now that's not a law, but it is a rule in elections. You can't do that. That's un-ethical.

So, I said okay, I understand all of it and the ethics rule is a good one. But what if there is an interpretation of what you did? So President Trump is obviously trying to find out about corruption. He believes that Joe Biden and his son were in some kind of corrupt bargain with Ukraine.

He believes that Ukraine might have information about the Russian collusion investigation, and he's the chief law enforcement officer of the land. Shouldn't he be compelled to ask for information from the president of Ukraine? Clarence ceded my point and I said if that's all true, and it is. That overrides though might be election violation. Does it not? That's why you guys watch me, right?

I'm not gloating. I'm telling you that this impeachment thing is dangerous and here's why it's happening. It's driven by the media, not Nancy Pelosi and her party. They're hitching a ride on the impeachment train. The media's driving it, and you know why?

Because not one Democratic candidate has captured the attention of the American people. Not one. And Joe Biden is a damaged guy. The media has to get Trump out of there or he may be re-elected and they know it - and that's what this is all about. Getting Trump out so he cannot run for re-election.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you again soon.

The Hatred of Donald Trump Has Propelled the Far Left

2019-09-18T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

Did you know that it's because of President Trump, that the far left is running wild in America? It's Trump's fault. So let me explain this. A week from today, I have my book, The United States of Trump, coming out. It's a history book on Donald Trump. It will tell you exactly how Trump pulled off the most amazing political feat that I've ever seen in my lifetime and perhaps ever in this republic. I'll walk you through it. All right. This is history as we are living it.

But along the way, the media got involved with Trump. All right. At first, the press, the networks, the big newspapers thought he was a joke and exploited him in the sense that CNN, Fox, MSNBC knew when they put Donald Trump on the air, their ratings were going to go up because he was so outrageous. So they said he didn't have a chance to be president. No way that's going to happen. We'll use him because he's a clown and we'll get higher ratings.

Then a Funny thing happened on the way to the White House. Trump's message got out. and his message was, I don't have any respect for these old time politicians, the swamp, who are hosing you, te American worker. That message resonated all over the place. Then Donald Trump used his media access to go in and destroy villains. He was then perceived by voters as an avenger and that's when his poll numbers started to come up and he became almost untouchable by the media. They saw the phenomenon too late to stop it. Even the stuff with Access Hollywood. I get into that in the book. It would've derailed anybody else nut not Trump.

Along the way, the media then started to hate Donald Trump. Because they were wrong about his growing power and they started to then anable fringe people. haters, hate groups. Groups that never would have gotten any attention three years, ago five years ago, became mainstream. Elizabeth Warren could never have run for president against Hillary Clinton and that was only three years ago. But now she's mainstream. Because of the hatred of Donald Trump, the media's standards blew out the window.

There are no standards, you know that. There's no truth. When a reporter is assigned a story, the editor says to the reporter, find out what happened. Find out what happened. It's very simple. That's what the editor is supposed to say. Not anymore. It's here's the conclusion we want. Brett Kavanaugh is an abuser. You come back with a story that proves that. That's what we want. Not find out what happened and back it up with facts. No longer.

When you have a corrupt media like that and then the media sanctions and encourages far left loons like Beto O'Rourke, those people get a much higher profile. So that's why President Trump has enabled and helped the far left because of the hatred directed to him by the press. It's all about the press.

The socialists wouldn't have gotten any attention in 2008 or 2012. Bernie Sanders, he got a little bit of attention just because he was so wild and just because a lot of Democrats didn't like Hillary Clinton but Sanders hasn't moved a point since he ran against Hillary Clinton. Not a point. So the socialists who liked Sanders then, like him now and nobody else is on board. But Elizabeth Warren has come up and it's because of her hatred and the others O'Rourke and Harris, all those people. That's why they're on that debate stage. The hatred of Donald Trump has propelled the far left.

That is a Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly. Please go to Bill O'Reilly.com, where we've got commentary all over the place and you can get the United States of Trump, free. Check it out. See you soon.

O'Reilly's Preview of the Democratic Debate

2019-09-11T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax. This is the Talking Points Memo.

Big political week because the third Democratic presidential debate is being held in Houston and it's being run by ABC News. He's got 10 candidates on the stage instead of 20. But only four have a chance. So that would be one Joe Biden. Then it would be one, Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.

Now I'm generous toward Miss Harris. I am being very generous here. I do believe that Biden's looking at her for a V.P. slot. So Kamala Harris is only polling at 7 percent. All right. She's kind of loopy. She is all over the place. She contradicts herself every hour on the hour. Once she was a tough prosecutor, now she wants to let everybody out of jail. No cash bail. It is all unfocused. She doesn't seem to be having a lot of fun on the campaign trail. Not a good speechmaker. You saw the retarded thing yesterday. Being very generous with Kamala Harris.

So really it's Biden. It's Warren. It's Bernie. This is a boon, b-o-o-n to Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is not going to be president United States. So if he would ever get the nomination, which isn't going to happen. All right. He would get killed in the election, like George McGovern did. You're not going to... I think Bernie's a communist. He's beyond socialist. All right. He basically doesn't think that any American has a right to private property. Bernie Sanders will take everything you have. So once that gets out there and the dimmest among us who don't pay attention go... I don't know if I want a president president's going to take all my stuff even if he's promising to give me a lot of stuff. In the end the take is always going to be bigger than the give. So Bernie is not going to be president and Bernie says the same thing every time you see him. So the debate on Thursday in Houston, no matter what they ask Bernie Sanders, no matter what...the billionaires. OK. We heard it. We heard it last time around 2016. We're hearing it again. It's boring. You got nothing else.

Now Elizabeth Warren is a little bit different. She's as militant left as Bernie Sanders, maybe not a communist but close. Ardent socialist. I got a column on Bill O'Reilly.com entitled "The Con". C-O-N. Tells you everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren. If you're interested, please go there and read the column. She's a dangerous woman because she looks like this hip granny. Elizabeth Warren. She has got a lot of energies out there like this. She looks harmless. You'd go trick or treating to her house right? But she'd take your candy...

So, Elizabeth Warren is not quite as bold and in your face as Bernie Sanders but it's the same plan. You and me, we don't have any right to our private property, our stuff, our assets. No. It's Washington's property and they'll just take it. Little by little. Take it for whatever they want to take it for. And you can't stop us. That's those people.

Joe Biden. Now he is the favorite of the insider Democrats who write the big checks. The Obama people. Biden is the favorite. It's a big problem with Joe. And I'm not going to be like conservative talk radio saying Biden is senile or dementia. I don't know any of that. I don't know. But I do know that he is not able to articulate a consistent message on the campaign trail. He cannot do it. So if you ask somebody, what does Joe Biden stand for? You don't know. It's almost like Kamala Harris but she can articulate that...it's all over the place. You can't even get a sentence or two out of Biden.

Now I don't know why. It's not fair for me to say is this he's that is the other thing. I don't know. As an American, I do know that I don't know what he's talking about. Now, historically he's a moderate and I don't believe he would start seizing private property but maybe he would. The smart money inside the Democratic Party wants Biden. They believe he could defeat Donald Trump and the other's can't. Again all of these Democratic candidates are doing Trump a favor. This is a big debate for Biden. If he can get through this debate, I believe he will get the nomination.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you again soon.

O'Reilly: The New Hollywood Blacklist

2019-09-04T17:42:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

The new Hollywood blacklist. Did you catch this over the Labor Day weekend?Will and Grace, remember that sitcom? It starred a guy named Eric McCormack and Debra Messing. Those are the two leads.

Well they got wind that some people in Beverly Hills are going to have a fundraiser for President Trump. So these two start to Tweet out and this is the danger in this country, this out of control tweeting, that if anybody goes to the fundraiser, any industry people, Hollywood people, they McCormick and Messing want to know about it so they can tell everybody.

So Messing says to The Hollywood Reporter quote, "please print a list of all attendees. The public has a right to know." Why? It's a private event. Now you have to put it on your income tax reform but that's a private thing. McCormick then tweets, "Hey, Hollywood Reporter, kindly report on everyone attending the event. So the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thanks." This is just vicious stuff. Messing and McCormick should be ashamed of themselves but they're not. They justify this new Hollywood blacklist because they hate President Trump and they want to harm anyone who doesn't hate him.

Now the tradition of the Hollywood Blacklist is a terrible terrible thing. I wrote about it in my book, Killing Reagan because Ronald Reagan as president of the Screen Actors Guild was involved with this and you should know what this is. After WW2, obviously the Soviet Union and the United States were in conflict, that's called the Cold War and there was this communist scare in America, ramrodded by Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin. And it went out to Hollywood and then there was a House of Un-American Activities in Washington. That was a government agent and they investigated these Hollywood people who might be communists and are a bunch of people on the list. Most of them were screenwriters. Sean Penn's father got caught up in this, Leo Penn. And a lot of them couldn't work ever. This is just un-American. If you want to be a communist under our Constitution, you can be a communist. So you have a constitutional right to join whatever political party you want to join. As long as you're not breaking law or committing a hate crime.

So now Messing and McCormack, uber leftists, say oh we find out you're supporting President Trump, we don't want to work with you and we don't want anybody else to work with you. Now this is going on in other areas. Me too. All right I guess this guy, Dave Chappelle, a comedian on Netflix is taking these organizations to task. Saying wait a minute, hold it. You're destroying people's lives, you don't even know what happened in many of these cases. That's what Hollywood is doing. This is the new black list. Now where's the outcry on the part of the media? The defenders of the underdog and the downtrodden. Messing and McCormick scorned by The Washington Post? No. New York Times? No. CNN? No. NBC News? No no no no no. No mention.

What if somebody on the Republican side said I want to know who's giving money to Barack Obama's campaign. Because if you do, I am going to try to hurt you. I am going to take your job away. That's been going on Hollywood for a long time. The conservative element in the movie and TV industry and music industry as well. They can't say what they believe. In fact they have secret societies. One is called Friends of Abe. Now some actors and actresses have come out and said you know, look I'm not a liberal person and I'm entitled to my opinion, but they get hurt. They get hurt and these agencies, these talent agencies like William Morris and UTA and CAA, if you don't toe their line politically, they don't want to represent you. OK so this is really vicious.

Now as an American, I can't really do much about this. All right. I mean Messing and McCormick, they can say what they want. No law. It just says the black listers in 1950s they could do what they wanted but I tell you what, any vehicle that stars those two... I don't think so.

That is the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you soon.

O'Reilly: Here's Why Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris Should Be Disqualified

2019-08-14T13:00:00Z

Hey Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo.

You might have missed it because it was underreported reported but last week something very, very troubling happened and it concerns two senators who are both running for president. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

So last week was the fifth anniversary of the terrible shooting in Ferguson, Missouri where a black man was shot to death and there was all kinds of accusations about the police officer killing Michael Brown. That turned out not to be true. You remember the "hands up, don't shoot" stuff and all that.

It was a media disgrace and in the end, the Justice Department under Eric Holder, one of the most liberal attorney generals in the history of this country, exonerated the police officer, even though he had to leave the force. He said there was no racial motive in this at all, that Mr. Brown himself was very aggressive and the officer was being physically attacked by Mr. Brown and the shooting was justified. This is the federal government's investigation.

Now put the story to rest until Kamala Harris said last week quote "Michael Brown's murder forever changed Ferguson and America." Soon after that, Elizabeth Warren tweeted "Five years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.".

OK. Now this is a pattern of behavior from these two. You'll remember both of them convicted Brett Kavanaugh in his hearings, based upon no evidence whatsoever. And subsequently after the Senate vote that put Judge Kavanaugh into the Supreme Court, the FBI went in heavy and found nothing. Nothing.

Everybody knows that. All right. It's on the record. FBI is the best criminal investigative agency in the world. Found nothing. Yet Harris and Warren convicted Judge Kavanaugh and told the world that he was guilty.

Now, the man has family, the man has two daughters. I mean it's just beyond the pale. And now they're back telling the nation that Michael Brown was murdered. These two people want to be president of the United States? Now this isn't a partisan play. I don't like partisan analysis. I find it dull. When I turn on the television or read a newspaper or whatever and I see a certain person who I know is always going to take the side of a party, no matter what. I don't even bother. Turn it off or I don't read it. I don't like that. This is an American issue, not a party issue.

We have two people running for president. All right who basically say due process doesn't exist. That if I think you're guilty. All right. Me, Kamala Harris or me, Elizabeth Warren, if I think you're guilty, you're guilty and I don't even care if an investigation shows you're not guilty. I don't even care about that because I know that murder was committed in Ferguson, Missouri.

Not only is this absurd and should be disqualifying for both of these women. They shouldn't even get one vote from anybody because of what they've done with Kavanaugh and now the late Michael Brown. It is an incredible occurrence that they have not even been criticized by the media. I haven't seen anything in the national media as far as non-ideological is concerned.

I mean they're all ideological now. We all know that but the newspapers, The Associated Press... or anything, no. You can now get away with anything. Anything. It's really disturbing, the depth of the deterioration of our constitutional rights in America.

The most important right. You have. All right outside of freedom of speech, is due process. Because if you don't have due process, anybody can accuse you and you are guilty. And that can ruin your life in a heartbeat. If Kavanaugh was voted down by the Senate. Remember, it is only one vote. Hid whole life was over. Always in the shadow of it.

So the point of this Talking Points Memo is to alert you, a fair minded person. I hope you are. There is danger in this presidential election, real danger. Warren and Harris have no use for the Constitution at all. And they have proven it now twice, beyond any reasonable doubt.

That's the memo.

Who is Really Behind the Hateful Rhetoric in America?

2019-08-07T01:28:00Z

Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

On my national radio program, The O'Reilly Update, I did a long analysis of hateful rhetoric in the USA - and there is plenty of it, as you know.

The genesis of the hateful rhetoric in the last three years was the ascension of Donald Trump to power.

Before that, there was hateful rhetoric directed at President Obama, President Bush the Younger but it wasn't nearly what it is today.

So we have two mass shootings over the weekend, and right away the hate-Trump people blame the president for those murders. That is grossly unfair.

In fact, it's revolting, and I say that with no ideology.

I'm not rooting for anyone, just as a human being, as an American citizen. Grossly unfair.

Now, the hateful rhetoric began in the campaign when Donald Trump basically slashed and burned his way to the nomination by calling other Republicans, white guys. Little Marco, lying Ted, that kind of thing.

President Trump believes, and you will see this in my upcoming book, The United States of Trump, that the best way to win is to personalize your opponent, in a negative way most of the time. And that's what he does.

Is that hateful? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is. There's no doubt about it.

So, President Trump has some blame, if you will, for the rhetoric situation we have in the United States.

However, once the president won, he was fairly gracious to Hillary Clinton, to Barack Obama when they made the transition. There wasn't a lot of angst. He wasn't acting out.

He was basically assuming power, but the American press hated him - and I use that word "hate" literally. And did everything they could to marginalize, embarrass and subsequently try to destroy Donald Trump.

He fought back and the rest is history. You know what happened.

Then the Democratic Party basically said you know what, if the media is going to hate him like this, we'll do it too, because there are no constraints.

We can hate Donald Trump as much as we want. We'll never get criticized for doing it.

So, there was like an alliance formed. The Democratic Party and the national media will both hate Trump.

So how did the president respond? Like he always does. He hated back. He hit back.

Now, I've talked to him about this personally, man to man, and he says to me, look if I don't protect myself, who's going to? The press isn't. So, I'm going to allow myself to be a pinata and get bashed every day without response?

Donald Trump's never gonna do that and I don't blame him. I don't blame him. There is a way to do it, particularly when you're President of the United States.

I’d tamp down the personal stuff, and I told him that.

But the rhetoric directed at Donald Trump is a thousand times more hateful then what Mr. Trump gives back, and then when you're analyzing Donald Trump's political rhetoric, it's all been taken out of context.

There's an interesting thing on Prager University, you know Dennis Prager? Go to his website about the Charlottesville situation - and I write out this extensively in the United States of Trump. I document it so there's no doubt. But Prager basically puts forth, this is the biggest lie in America today. What Donald Trump said about Charlottesville, Virginia.

So, look whether you agree with that or not, it's worth reading or seeing what Prager is saying. But there is no question that the hateful rhetoric is now fueled by a hateful press and media. That's who's driving this train.

Now, I don't believe in blaming anybody for mass murder. That's not fair. But we as Americans should be a fair people.

You want hate? Look at the New York Times, The Washington Post, listen to CNN, NBC News. Every single day you got hate.

That is the Talking Points Memo.

O'Reilly's Predictions for the Democratic Debates

2019-07-31T13:00:00Z

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

I'm going to make a prediction about the Democratic presidential contender debates. Two of them... and see if I'm right or if I'm totally ridiculous. All right so pay attention because what I'm going to say and then you go tomorrow and Thursday, you can say O'Reilly is full of it or O'Reilly is a genius.

All right let's start with tonight. Only two people on the stage, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have any chance at all to do well in primaries. The others are not really factors at all. Beto O'Rourke, he's bringing three people, three high school football players who didn't stand for the national anthem. Beto, do you really think that's going to get you anywhere? You're polling about 2 percent.

Moyor Buttigieg polling zero percent among African-Americans in a new CNN poll. He's 5 percent overall. I mean, these guys and the rest of them are worse. I mean nobody cares, nobody knows. Nobody's paying attention. And the debate format with 10 people on stage, two hours, you don't really have anything but Sanders and Warren, they're going to have the same audience. And there's no difference between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, they're socialists. That's what they are. OK. So if you combine both of their audiences, then you have something. But they split the ticket.

So Elizabeth Warren in particular has to knock out Bernie Sanders. How is she going to do that? It's hard because they're simpatico politically. But she's got to figure out some way to make Sanders look old and doddering. Remember Sanders is going down because he's a white man and in the Democratic precincts, white guys are not really what they want. I wrote a column on Bill O'Reilly.com about the evil white man syndrome. So Bernie's big problem is his gender and his age somewhat. So I expect Elizabeth Warren to do something to get ahead of Bernie Sanders. If Sanders doesn't do well tonight, he's through.

All right that's tonight. So thre is not really a lot going on. Tomorrow, you got Joe Biden. He is the big story. So Biden still, if you go to Real Clear Politics.com, they have an aggregate of all the polling, national polling on the presidential race. Biden is still way out in front. OK Sanders and Warren are behind him. Kamala Harris is fourth and then I think it's Buttigieg, way down at 5 percent.

So, Biden, he's trying basically to rise above all this crazy far left stuff but he can't. So now he has to start to repudiate his old positions. He did so on abortion. Now he's on the death penalty. Biden was a big death penalty guy. Now he doesn't want it anymore. He's changing. Changing his vision. All of that. I don't know how you change these core beliefs. I've always been against the death penalty. Because I believe that the Creator decides when you're born and when you die. It's why I oppose abortion. So I'm consistent. Oh by the way, if I were in charge, the People commit murder and rape and these things... they'd wish they were dead in the prison I would put them in.

So anyway, Biden, they're going to come after Biden because he was once a crime warrior. Tough on crime. He signed all these bills, not sign them, he proposed all these bills. Put them in jail, put them in jail, put them in jail. Execute them, execute them, execute. That's his legacy. That's his history. That's his resume. The others are going to come at him like crazy... You put all these African-Americans in jail. They shouldn't be in jail. It's not a crime to sell heroin and methamphetamine. That's not a violent crime. No no no no no.

So what is Biden going to do? He's probably gonna go, now I'm woke or I've changed or I've evolved all of that. Then they're going to go the race thing with Biden. You know they're going to start that again. By the way, before every answer of every candidate, they're going to go, Trumps a racist and now I'll answer your question. That's what they are going to do. So Biden is the big story. I don't think Kamala Harris is the one that's going to go at him. Because I think Harris basically wants to stay where she is. All right. Well she's growing a little bit. She didn't want to get a big controversy with Biden and his people. But I could be wrong. Harris might go after him like she did last time.

But if Biden does not do well on Thursday night. Might be Bye-Bye Biden. He can't take another one. He's gotta look strong and presidential and he's got to be confident of his positions and explain himself. But he is the story in this week's Democratic debates. By the way, CNN commentators, don't expect anything tough. Maybe one or two tough questions but they'll never follow up. All right CNN is solidly in the Democratic camp.

That is the Talking Points Memo. I am Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you again soon.

President Trump vs. Four Congresswomen Who Don't Like America

2019-07-17T13:00:00Z

This week’s Talking Points Memo is on the political power play happening between President Trump and four radical Congresswomen. This controversy is not about race, this is about winning the White House. President Trump believes that his attacks will help him get re-elected, and the radical leftists believe that they will get Trump out of office by using this controversy to brand him a racist—along with the media’s help.

Hi, Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

Hey, what about this President Trump—four radical Congresswoman controversy?

So, what this is all about is politics, not anything substantial. Not anything that would actually affect your life or my life as Americans.

So, there is a strategy going on here, and the media will not tell you what this is - because the media is invested in getting Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.

So they portray, they being the press, this story as a, "oh, he's a racist" story. That's where all the energy is flowing.

But here's what's really going on.

You have the four Radical Congresswomen. Alright. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, you know them.

They truly believe that America is a unfair country. A place where white men abuse everyone else. That's the common theme that the four radical Congresswomen have.

Gotta understand that.

The Democratic Party fears those women, especially Ocasio-Cortez, who is a media darling and can command attention. And you've seen it. You've seen Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, criticize Ocasio-Cortez, basically tells her to pipe down. Because Nancy Pelosi knows most Americans are not radicals, and they don't want America-haters - which is really what these women are - in charge. Now the women would say, “O'Reilly, you're crazy, that's not what we are.”

I understand that. But, if you analyze their positions and what they actually believe, there's no way you can say that they respect America or think it's a noble nation. They don't.

So, Donald Trump seizes upon this, and he says to his fellow citizens, “hey, look, if they don't like the country, and they're criticizing it to the detriment of America, then you go back to where their ancestors lived,” or in one case Omar, where she lived. OK, so Somalia. Go back there.

Fix up those places then come back and tell us how it's done. Sarcastic.

Racist? You decide. You decide.

But remember – remember – Ocasio-Cortez basically implied Nancy Pelosi is a racist. After Pelosi criticized her. You'll remember that, Ocasio-Cortez, says, “oh she's picking on women of color.”

And same thing in the debate. OK. Kamala Harris, the senator basically implied Joe Biden is a racist. Why else would she bring up the voting on bussing 50 years ago? Or Biden's association with segregationist senators way back when.

Why? She wants to imply that he's a racist, that he doesn't like black people. It is the only reason to do it.

So, Donald Trump basically says, look this is what I'm up against, alright, so vote for me and send me money. It is a big fundraiser for him.

In the second quarter, the Trump campaign took in more than one hundred million dollars. Huge. Huge. So, Americans they don't weigh in because they don't have access to the media.

But believe me when I tell you, that Donald Trump believes that his Tweet attacks on these four radical Congresswoman will help him get re-elected and raise a lot of money for him.

Now, on the other side, the Democrats now say, okay there is no doubt the President is a racist. We got five things we can point to beginning with the birther movement on Barack Obama. And then in Charlottesville, there's the S-Hole countries. We could just make a case that he hates black people. He hates migrants. He hates Hispanics, he hates gays. Whatever it is.

Again, American people have to decide whether there's any validity to that or not. And I can help you because my upcoming book, ‘The United States of Trump,’ I've researched all of these things and we'll present you to facts.

But right now, the Democratic Party believes it can destroy the president's legacy and get him out of office in 2020 by branding him a racist using this controversy.

So, there you have it. It's a political power play. It's not about race.

Donald Trump couldn't care less about putting his boot on the neck of any minority. He doesn't show a lot of empathy for minority groups or the grievance industry, he doesn't. His thing is, I provide a good economy that helps everybody. So how can you possibly call me a racist?

Very fascinating what's going on here. Think about it. It's going to get worse.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. That is the Talking Points Memo.

Socialism in Western Europe - and America

2019-07-10T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So last week I'm in Europe. I went to Germany and Austria. I want to tell you a little bit about the trip. It was both business and social. So I flew into Berlin. I had some meetings there to find out essentially how the semi-socialist system is working in Western Europe.

The system that the Democrats are basing their entire presidential campaign on and I wanted to be fair. I don't like socialism, semi-socialism, any kind of socialism. But we are living in a very complicated era where people are making fortunes in the high tech industry in particular. And I wanted to see how other governments are handling the so-called income inequality.

So Berlin is a liberal town. A lot of people are unemployed by choice. Not a particularly pretty place. World War 2 wiped it out. I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. I reported that story and that was the last time I was there. It's bustling. No need to go there unless you're interested in history.

There is the remnants of the Nazis. In fact the bunker where Hitler was killed, he killed himself, is a parking lot now. They actually poured sand in the bunker, paved it over and it's a parking lot. Very interesting.

So after Berlin I took the train down to Munich in southern Germany. Now Northern Germany is liberal, lutheran. Southern Germany is conservative Catholic by tradition. So Munich is a nice town and it could be in America. You know if you had the language, English and the old buildings obviously can't duplicate here. But outside of the buildings and the language, it could be anywhere USA.

So people live in small houses or apartments. They have nice cars. They smoke a lot more than we do. They drink probably the same as we do and it's a bustling place. People are working and trying to make a living. Now, I hired a guide. A smart thing to do if you can afford it wherever you go.

The guide was very knowledgeable, spoke perfect English. I said OK let's go over your paycheck. Give me the tax rundown and here is what the Democrats want. I wrote a column about this called, The Plan on Bill O'Reilly.com. So if you read that column after hearing this commentary, you'll have the whole picture.

So first of all it is 8 percent local tax to the Munich authorities to live in the Munich area. 8 percent. Then there's a 12 percent of your salary goes to health insurance. Health insurance is not free. Then 19 percent value added tax, VAT on almost everything you buy. So you want to buy that BMW, that Mercedes? You got to add 19 percent onto the list price.

Then here is an income tax, federal income tax. 14 if you're not making any money. Forty five if you're making good money. 14 percent to 45 percent. You add it up. For the German worker and not a lot of money left over. Now once you pay twelve percent, you get free medical care but you can just go to any doctor you want. You've got to get it OK'd.

Same thing with the hospital and if you have to have an operation, you got to wait, sometimes a long time. German efficiency is good. The hospitals are good. But you're told where to go, when you go and you don't really have a say in the matter. That's socialized medicine. That is single payer healthcare.

But the most important thing for you to know as an American is the Democratic Party wants this system and it's all about inequality. See the Democrats and liberal Americans see this society here, in the USA as unfair.

So they're affluent people. Some of them made their money in nefarious ways but most didn't. Some of them inherited their money, but most didn't.

Most are like me.

I started out with zero. No money when I got out of Boston University and I had my first job in Scranton, PA. I didn't make any money and I worked my way up. Now I'm affluent. But the Democrats say that's no good. That affluence is no good.

We're going to take it from you and give it to people who don't have to balance it out. And in Germany that's what they do. So the German worker cannot save money, therefore cannot invest, buy stocks and bonds because nothing left over. That's what the Democrats want to do here. That is the plan.

Check it out on BillOReilly.com. I am Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax. We'll see you again soon.

O'Reilly Previews What to Expect Out of the Democratic Debates

2019-06-26T13:00:00Z

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

Now this week, we have two nights of Democratic presidential contender debates. Wednesday and Thursday. Thursday is the bigger one, with Joe Biden in it because they're going to have to gang up on Biden. You got 20 people. 10 on 10. A lot of bloviating. Five moderators from NBC News. Now it's important that people watch this. I don't think it's going to get big ratings. I think people are going to wait. Americans are going to wait till the field files down a little bit.

There's no real attraction like Donald Trump was in the Republican debates in 2015. But it is an interesting exercise and you get a good opportunity to see if the Democratic Party is going to go moderate, Joe Biden or far left, pretty much everybody else. John Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado is an exception but nobody knows who he is.

So here's what I expect. I expect Elizabeth Warren to be the most shrill against Donald Trump. Warren has to separate herself from Bernie Sanders. Poll today says Sanders is still beating her by about seven percentage points. Sanders is second to Biden. Biden's lead has slipped a little bit. Nobody on the far left wants Joe Biden to be the Democratic nominee.

Now the debate will be controlled by the five NBC people. Lester Holt, the moderator is the main one. He's the anchor man of the NBC Nightly News. And then you have the others who... Chuck Todd, Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow, I mean give me a break. All of that is NBC politics.

So you've got a lot of good questions that could be asked and I wrote a column on Bill O'Reilly.com, specific questions that I would ask and am I going to bore you... It's not boring but I'm not, you know read the column on Bill O'Reilly.com if you want to know what I would ask. But I don't expect the NBC people to ask anything that's really penetrating.

Todd and Holt have to give him a little bit of a hard time, the candidates but they won't follow up with any meaning. Now here are the deficits for the Democratic Party. Number one. The party does not want to control illegal immigration to the United States. That is obvious. So it's a lot of open border stuff. Everybody comes here.

You can just go down the list.

Beto O'Rourke, Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders. They don't want to stop anybody. And then the 12 or 13 million illegal aliens already here, they want amnesty. So the Democratic Party is the party of amnesty and open borders. That should be clearly established by the debate moderators. It won't be.

All right and then a lot of these far left, they want to abolish ICE. They don't want any enforcement. Nancy Pelosi doesn't think it's a crime to come in here. All of that crazy stuff. Trump's going to go to town on that in the general election.

Second thing is reparations for slavery. Only 8 percent of Americans, according to a Marist poll favor reparations for slavery. 8 percent. So all, except for Bernie Sanders and Biden, you don't know where Biden is. He didn't like it in the past but maybe now he does. He changes his position on everything. Bernie Sanders says no reparations but all the rest do.

You gotta get...nail him down on that. All right then you have no insurance companies. This is the Bernie Sanders. Say no, if he's elected, there won't be any private health insurance available to the United States, except for cosmetic surgery. If you want a nose job. It's unconstitutional and so is reparations for slavery by the way. That's another column on Bill O'Reilly.com. It is unconstitutional, can't do it.

These people, they don't really care. It's throwing it, throwing it, throwing it and then everything free. Free education, free healthcare, free housing, guaranteed wage, guaranteed job. So the debates, nail them all down. Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom. Don't let them waffle. Don't let them weasel. You gotta get in on the follow ups. You think that's going to happen? You think NBC News is gonna do that? I don't. I hope I'm wrong. We'll see.

And that is the Talking Points Memo. As mentioned, Bill O'Reilly.com has a whole bunch of really, really good stuff. We go through every night and do commentary and we hope you check that out and I will see you on Newsmax again soon.

How the Far-Left has Hijacked the Democratic Party

2019-06-19T07:00:00Z

Hey Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

It will be very interesting to see if President Trump campaigns on how the far left has hijacked the Democratic Party. So we all know the issues and there really isn't much commonality between President Trump and the Democrats. What is different though this time around than in 2016 is that radical leftists pretty much drive the agenda of the Democratic Party.

Now, 10 years ago this never could have happened because the press, the American press would have scrutinized the radical left. Today they enable the radical left. So you have newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, network news, cable news many people inside those organizations sympathize with the radicals. So they're allowed to say anything they want.

And the perfect example is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez saying, she's a congresswoman, that the United States has concentration camps on its southern border. That migrants being detained for illegally crossing our border and be putting into quote concentration camps. The congresswoman uses that word.

Now, if you know anything about history, if you've read Killing the SS, my latest book... This is an irresponsible statement in the extreme. There are no concentration camps. Now, she was called on it, Miss Cortez. She was oh no there's a difference between concentration camps and death camps. That's true. Auschwitz was a death camp. You were sent there. You're gonna be killed. Dachau, outside of Munich was a concentration camp for political prisoners and other so-called undesirables by the Nazi party. You didn't necessarily die in Dachau. You did in Auschwitz. So at least the congresswoman knows that.

But to say that U.S. detention centers are concentration camps is grossly irresponsible and ten years ago she never would have gotten away with that in the media. But now she does. And Congresswoman Cortez is about the most radical left politician, elected politician I've ever seen.

Second. Reparations for slavery. There is a hearing in the House this week, in a subcommittee. First time ever about possibly giving African-Americans cash payments or land. All right. To make up for slavery in the 19th century. Well this is never going to happen and it shouldn't happen.

I wrote a column in detail on Bill O'Reilly.com, I hope you read it and it's very personal because my family lost everything in Ireland. The British seized my family's land during the famine and it was shocking what happened. And if you go in to every country, including this one, the government has abused the people at times. Native Americans. All right. Aren't they entitled to reparations? And there was an article this week in The New York Times, an op ed said gays are entitled reparation. Well everybody's entitled reparations. Not going to happen. Interesting though.

Fifty eight percent of African-Americans, about 47 million African-Americans right now. Fifty eight percent of them want reparations. You know how many whites want? 8. 8 percent. 8 percent. So if you ever passed it, which again will never happen. Ok. You would create a division in America between the white and black race. That's good policy?

Now I can get into this in a very micro way but again it's better if you read it. If you read it on Bill O'Reilly.com because then you'll be able to read slowly and get all of my points. Going back to President Trump. He can campaign on do you want these people? Is this what you want?

You may not like me that much but that's what you want? Open borders. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, reparations for slavery. That's what you want? Seems to me to be a very powerful campaign argument.

And that is the Talking Points Memo. Please check out Bill O'Reilly.com and we will see you soon.

Trump vs. Biden in 2020

2019-06-12T07:00:00Z

Hi I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

President Trump is in Iowa today and he's making fun of Joe Biden. He's calling Biden's slow. Vice President Biden is in Iowa today and he's making fun of Trump. Calling him a threat to the nation, to you, to your family to everyone you know.

This is the beginning of the Biden Trump 2020 campaign. Now, I've said this six months maybe even longer that it is Joe Biden's nomination to lose on the Democratic side. And the reason is there really isn't anyone with any gravitas that can overcome Biden's name recognition and money and the support behind the scenes that President Obama is giving him.

So you have somebody like Bernie Sanders. He's not going to be the nominee. Elizabeth Warren is not going to be the nominee. The Democratic Party's not going to nominate socialists because they know they'll get murdered in the general election. One of the younger people Buttigieg or O'Rourke or Kamala Harris. They're just not well-known enough and their views are all over the place.

So it's Biden versus Trump. Now both of them are feisty guys. I know them both. Obviously I know President Trump much better than Joe Biden. But I know Biden for a long time and they both can get the zingers off and they're both personable and the crowds that they are trying to woo. There's no question that they both have the stature to run a re-election campaign that the media will pay attention to.

Now the far left doesn't want Joe Biden. And the Republican Party is falling into line. The public polls show that about 90 percent the Republican Party is behind Donald Trump's reelection. But the Democrat is still fracture. Far left doesn't want Biden. They see him as a hack. He's not progressive enough. He's not climate change enough. He's not gay enough. He's not anything enough.

They want to knock him out and that's a problem for Biden. That's why he flip flopped on the Hyde Amendment and abortion. Which didn't really make Biden look too good. You support the Hyde Amendment for 43 years and then all of a sudden you don't support it. No explanation. That makes you look bad.

It makes you look like a politician. Like somebody who doesn't really have any core moral values. The Hyde Amendment by the way is very simple. All it says is that federal money, tax money can't be used to fund abortions unless rape incest or catastrophic health for the mother. And that's because more than half the country is morally opposed to abortion. And you can't, in a federal government situation impose some kind of policy that majority of the country finds immoral. So it's legal abortion but catholics and evangelicals and others who don't morally support it...

You can't force them to give their money to do it. I mean I was thinking but now we live in an age where the bad people, excuse me with this thing here but with the bad people are the pro-life people. And I wrote a column on Bill O'Reilly.com that you should read. How did that happen?

If you support life...you're bad, you're evil. And the media has managed to do that in America. It's pretty startling.

Anyway getting back to Obama and Biden. So this is the run right now. And it's way too early to start to campaign but it started. First debates are a couple of weeks. Democratic debates. Twenty four candidates on NBC. But by the time the primaries roll around. People are going to be exhausted.

I mean the candidates will meet every single person in Iowa. You'll be, you'll just be... What is this? Way too early but it's happening.

President Trump's going to announce reelection soon. There is no doubt. I told you that from the beginning. President Trump, as I write in my upcoming book, started his re-election campaign on his inauguration day. So watch Trump / Biden. Should be pretty interesting back and forth between those two men.

That is the Talking Points Memo. For more commentary, please go to Bill O'Reilly.com and we'll see you soon.

O'Reilly on the Growing Homeless Problem in Three American Cities

2019-06-05T13:00:00Z

Hi I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax and this is the Talking Points Memo.

Did you know that in three major West Coast cities, there is a homeless problem that has now reached disastrous levels. Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'm going to take them one by one and I'm going to tell you why it's happening and then at the end of this commentary I'm going to give you a solution.

Which of course is not going to be followed because all three cities have one thing in common, uber liberal management. So the citizens of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle have elected far left people to run the city's. And those people believe that personal responsibility is gone in America.

That you can't hold people accountable for their actions.That's the general belief unless the person's name is Donald Trump.

Then you can make up stuff. But anyway I'm getting ahead of myself. All right. So Los Angeles. If you've been to the city of the angels you know that Downtown L.A. is east about 20 / 25 miles from the ocean. Most affluent Angelenos live on the west side. In Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Century City, Santa Monica, those communities. Some of those people never even see downtown L.A. unless they go to a Dodger game or a Laker game.

OK estimates are there are 55,000 homeless people roaming the streets of Los Angeles right now. Many of them downtown, where they live on the street because they're homeless in bags, lean tos, tents, cars wherever but they have clustered together.

This has presented a major health problem to Los Angeles. Two police officers have contracted typhus. Soon bubonic plague is likely to break out in downtown Los Angeles because rats are running wild. So many rats that they've invaded City Hall, where the mayor does absolutely nothing about any of this.

OK. Now the homeless people in Los Angeles and San Francisco and Seattle but we'll get to them. Are primarily substance abusers. They're addicted people. Who cannot or will not work. Therefore they have no money to buy a house or rent an apartment. Because their money, what little they have goes for substance. Heroin. Alcohol. Crack. Methamphetamine. Fentanyl. You name it.

These people cluster together because it's easier for them to consume narcotics in that way. But around the perimeter of the homeless encampments are drug dealers all over the place. Because every day the addicted have to have their drugs and alcohol.

All right. That's the picture and now there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people clustering together. The public health problem is enormous. Because they go to the bathroom on the streets. They don't wash. They're not clean. They're sharing needles, that spreads AIDS and other diseases. All right. I mean it is a catastrophe.

San Francisco is an estimated 15,000 homeless. Why? Because San Francisco's city government gives them cash. Where does the cash go? Right to the drug dealer. Right to the alcohol store. The liquor store. OK now it's San Francisco it's a more aggressive because that city is all in a very small area.

So the homeless are right on top of the millionaires and the homeless are pandering, aggressively. I was just out there. San Francisco is falling apart. Same thing with Seattle. You go to the marketplace, I was at Pike Street Market. Homeless everywhere. Aggressive homeless. All right. Same thing. Substance Abusers.

Together more than ten thousand in a city like Seattle, that's an army. OK. Nothing is being done about it. Solution is pretty easy. Cut off the drugs. Stop the pushers. Drugs go away, homeless go away. That's it. They won't do it.

That is the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly, for more commentary please go to Bill O'Reilly.com where we will get into this issue, a little bit deeper. See you soon.

O'Reilly: The Theater of the Absurd

2019-05-29T18:24:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! This week Bill analyzes the hate John Voight received from the Hollywood elite for praising President Trump.

O'REILLY:

Hi Bill O'Reilly here for Newsmax. This is the Talking Points Memo, the Theater of the Absurd.

So a little war has broken down Hollywood between conservative actor Jon Voight. You know him, he's on Ray Donovan. He's won an Academy Award as Best Actor for a movie called "Coming Home" which was an anti-war movie. He's won Golden Globes, he's won everything. The guy is a fantastic actor.

Anyway he took to social media to tell the world that President Trump is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. Well almost immediately the hard left in Hollywood started to disparage Mr. Voight. Comedian, Albert Brooks compared him to John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. That was nasty.

But the most high profile is this woman Alyssa Milano, who called Jon Voight an F-lister, a has been who is trying to become relevant. Now I don't know if this was the smartest move because Jon Voight at 80 years old is still working. As I mentioned in Ray Donovan and he is one of the best actors on the planet. Alissa Milano is a television actress. I'm not going to denigrate what she's done but surely it's not in the class of Jon Voight.

Now here is the larger issue. Why the personal attacks? If Jon Voight believes that President Trump is on the par with Abraham Lincoln, he has a right to that opinion without being attacked personally. Does he not? I think Mr. Voight and I know him, is emotional. He's a very staunch conservative and he throws things out to get attention.

I mean my evaluation of presidents only come after they leave office. Not while they're in office. But Mr. Voight believes the economy, foreign policy, the fact that Donald Trump has overcome a lot of obstacles qualifies him for that comparison. Again you don't have to agree with it but he has a right to state what he thinks as an American citizen without people trying to run him down. And his career and his whole persona. We got to stop this.

You know we have to stop this. I want robust debate in America. I don't want gutter sniping. I don't want smear merchants but I can't stop it because social media gives these people an unbelievable platform. So even though Jon Voight has an unbelievable platform, he can go on to say whatever he wants, his detractors do as well.

So I think that all of us, when we hear dissent. All right I don't agree with your opinion. They should watch how the dissent is countered. So if Alissa Milano wants to say well I think Jon Voight is wrong and here is the list of presidents I feel are better and here's why, I certainly would listen to that. But to call call the guy a has been at I mean 80 years old the guy is still at the top of his game, John Boy. His is an amazing actor.

And I don't know how he, Jon Voight feels about it. He didn't lash back right away. I hope he doesn't say anything. I hope Jon Voight doesn't say anything. I hope he lets his career speak for itself and commentators like me. Now just the fact that I'm saying this to you. I know I'm going to be attacked personally.

I mean that's what I have to put up with every day of my life. And it got so bad when I was working at the Fox News Channel that I actually had paid security guards living in my house. That is how bad it got, just because I gave an opinion on TV. People wanted to hurt me or kill me. Say anything, do anything to silence me, punish me because they disagreed with my opinion. That's a sickness, that's an illness. When you can't tolerate an opposing point of view in your life. You need to get some help.

And that's the memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax reminding you father's day is coming up. Please check out Killing the SS and the seven other Killing books for dad and granddad. They'll love them. You can give them a Premium Membership on Bill O'Reilly.com, you get a free book. OK. All of that we have for you and it would be nice for dad and granddad on Father's Day.

We'll see you soon.

Talking Points: Pelosi Holds Back on Impeachment - Despite Her Party's Wishes

2019-05-22T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! This week Bill analyzes the hate Tiger Woods received from the lef for going to the White House.

O'REILLY:

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax. So on Monday, Nancy Pelosi had a meeting in her lavish office at the U.S. Capitol. Is of course the speaker of the House, entitled to a lavish office, which she does have. In that meeting were Democrats in the House who wanted to start articles of impeachment against President Trump. Also in the meeting were Nancy Pelosi acolytes who don't. No impeachment, not yet.

All right. So the lines are drawn, the battle lines are drawn. Now I don't know Nancy Pelosi, I've talked to her one time in my life. She had no idea who I am. None. Her husband who was there knew and I thought was going to faint. And I invited her on my program on Fox at the time and of course she said she would come and then she backed out when she, her husband said you know who that is? No.

So I personally I don't really know what Nancy Pelosi is all about and I do know that she's an ardent Democrat and a leftist from San Francisco. All right but in this case she's not an uber leftist, she's a moderate. Why? Why is Nancy Pelosi, probably President Trump's biggest opponent not wanting to begin articles of impeachment against him? Three reasons.

Number one is the obvious, that there was a two year investigation that found no wrongdoing on President Trump's part. That's Robert Mueller. Number two. There is an explosive report coming from the Department of Justice that may indict sitting FBI people and people in other intelligence agencies under Barack Obama, who ginned up a phony scheme, excuse me scheme, to remove Donald Trump or get him defeated in the election. That's coming. Pelosi, O'Reilly, you... we don't know what's in it but it's certainly a danger zone. And the third thing is the 2020 presidential election. Because according to the polls, most recently NBC / Wall Street Journal, I got the number here. Forty five percent of the country says no we don't want to impeach. No. OK. Only 34 percent say no...19 percent.

Only 19 percent in this Wall Street Journal poll say there is enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. That's not a lot of people. 19 percent. So Pelosi knows that this could backfire and the unintended consequences of launching impeachment against a sitting president would most likely wreck the Democratic Party's chances to regain the presidency in 2020. OK.

Now there's also another thing involved here. So you have the Democratic Party split between far left progressives and liberal moderates. There really aren't any conservative people in Democratic Party any longer. All right. So that...So that that doesn't exist anymore but the split in the party means that if the Democrat left, the progressives, you know Cortez these people, if they're deemed to have power more power than the other side.

A lot of these moderates aren't going to turn out. That's why Donald Trump's president. Did you know 800000 African-Americans who voted for Barack Obama stayed home and did not vote for Hillary Clinton? That was enough. To put Donald Trump ahead, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee. African-American didn't turnout. That's why Trump won.

Pelosi very shrewd says if we are the crazy party, the party of Ocasio Cortez, we will lose. Not only going to lose the presidency, we're going to lose the house. So Pelosi is not going to be speaking. So she's in a power position now, Nancy Pelosi. But if articles of impeachment are put forth without any underpinning other than crazy conspiratorial stuff that's unproven, you'll lose the house.

That's why Pelosi is doing what she's doing. Now the likely nominee for the Democrats, even though you know it's a year...more for the convention is Joe Biden. And Biden's going to play it on the Pelosi side. He's not going to cross that progressive line. He is gonna stay there and all the polls say he's well ahead.

And that is the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax reminding you that we, I believe, I believe this fervently, have the best daily commentary on Bill O'Reilly.com in the nation. I hope you check it out and if you like it, get a Premium Membership for yourself, for your dad on Father's Day, for your grandfather. Spread it around. We'll see you soon.

O'Reilly: No Such Thing as 'Not Guilty' in America

2019-05-15T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! This week Bill analyzes the hate Tiger Woods received from the lef for going to the White House.

O'REILLY:

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax.

So I wrote a column this week on Bill O'Reilly.com entitled "There is No Such Thing as Not Guilty in America." This doesn't get a lot of publicity but it is very very important to every single citizen in this country. So when the founding fathers made the Constitution, way way back in the 18th century, they rejected the Napoleonic Code. Which is a justice system of France. It says you are guilty and you must prove yourself innocent.

That's the Napoleonic Code, still used today in France and other countries. Foudning fathers said no, you as an American citizen in this new country are innocent until the authorities prove you guilty. So why did they do that?

Because in the 17th century, in Salem Massachusetts, 19 human beings were executed after they were charged are being witches. Now witches don't exist. So the state, and it wasn't a state then, it was a Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They executed 19 people on bogus charges. It was hysteria. The Salem Witch Trials to this day are used in situations where people are unjustly charged.

So for all of the time that we've been a nation, due process has been in play. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And you are entitled to a lot of rights, the right to an attorney, right to remain silent, all that. Now this is turned around in the court of public opinion and a variety of factors have driven it.

The me too movement, all women must be believed when they lodge an accusation against a man of any kind. Gotta believe the women, that's what these people are putting out. So therefore an industry has grown up saying that you can charge someone, we an attorney, a law firm, you see it on TV radio newspapers, all that.

We will represent you and will go and try to get you money. For whatever abuse it may be. OK because all women must be believed. Now the most dramatic form of that was in the Judge Kavanaugh hearing, when that man was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of terrible things when he was a younger person. Now his family and himself went through hell in, publicly and then he was confirmed as Supreme Court by Susan Collins. Basically the senator from Maine. Afterwards the FBI looked into it and found nothing.

Not one shred of evidence, still to this day Democrat senators like Dianne Feinstein, like Cory Booker, like Kamala Harris convicted Kavanaugh. Said he was guilty and they had no idea. No blanking idea what happened. They did no investigation. So due process flew right out the window. Kavanaugh, in the in the minds of many people, guilty even he was a Supreme Court justice, guilty.

OK so we see this time and time and time again. Best example recently, the Mueller report. Came out and said President United States didn't collude and we don't have enough evidence to say he obstructed justice. Did many Americans accept that? No.

They have convicted Donald Trump. They know better. They have convicted him. The Democratic party doing everything it can to bring this case back. So they loved Mueller when he was investigating but now that the investigators didn't show anything after 33 million dollars in two years, now they don't like him so much. So we'll find out. We'll we'll we'll get him we'll get him get him get him get him. Wrong and dangerous.

Every single American citizen could be accused tomorrow and then in our society some people will find you guilty no matter what. And certainly the media will put it on page one if you're a famous person. And then if you're exonerated or there's no evidence that'll be on page 33. Desperately wrong. And that is the Talking Points Memo.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax reminding you we do commentary every night on Bill O'Reilly dot com. And don't forget my book Killing the SS a great Father's Day gift.

O'Reilly on The Baltimore Sun's Stunning Display of Hatred Toward Tiger Woods

2019-05-08T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! This week Bill analyzes the hate Tiger Woods received from the lef for going to the White House.

O'REILLY:

Hey i'm Bill O'Reilly here and this is the Talking Points Memo.

Earlier this week, Golfer Tiger Woods went to the White House to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now Mr. Woods knows President Trump. They play golf together. They've done a little business together. I don't know if they're friends, but they're certainly acquaintances. In a stunning display of hatred and bias and I mean that word stunning literally.

The Baltimore Sun personally attacked Tiger Woods for accepting the honor. Now think about this for a minute. The Sun editorialized quote "Mr. Woods has made his choice and part of his legacy will be embracing a man, the President, who incited bigotry and racism" unquote.

So that means that any American who showed respect to President Trump by either going to the White House or posing for a picture with him or whatever it may be, would be embracing bigotry, according to Baltimore Sun.

Now a couple of things here. First of all the Baltimore Sun is above all a left wing, politically correct newspaper located in a city that's literally falling apart. It's mayor, who I believe the Baltimore Sun endorsed had to leave office because she was doing some corrupt stuff.

Baltimore has an unbelievably high murder rate. Drug addiction is all over the place and the inner city that Baltimore encompasses is a wreck. The Baltimore Sun endorses the Democratic machine and always has.

So that's where they're coming from but I don't mind them objecting to President Trump. If you're a left wing newspapers and 80 percent of them are. That's kind of your duty. You object to a Republican president. But to label Trump a bigot and to say anybody associated with him is a bigot. Particularly Tiger Woods who's identified himself as Asian Caucasian and African-American. All right. It is hateful.

So I'm writing the United States of Trump and I'm wrapping it up now. I'm hoping I get a another few minutes with the president because there are new things that have come out. Whether I do or not, I don't know. He likes me on Tuesday, he doesn't like me on Wednesday. It doesn't matter to me, I've got the book, the book is a history book. Every page of it's true. You'll learn something on every page. It'll be out in September.

But anyway part of the book is researching this bigotry stuff. And it comes down to two things. It comes down to the birther stuff on Barack Obama. That Trump championed and the Charlottesville situation. Now Charlottesville I definitively will prove what happened there in the book.

The person thing is a matter of opinion. Why Donald Trump did did it. And I'll and I'll give you what my think it's more opinionated in Charlottesville Charlottesville is a factual situation but no matter what you believe about Donald Trump you don't brand him a bigot and then tried to discredit anyone that deals with them particularly Tiger Woods.

Now if I were Tiger Woods I'd speak out against the Baltimore Sun who by the way in this editorial says Colin Cameron is the greatest guy read his guy in the world. COLIN KAPPERNICK diminished every single police officer in America. But he's the greatest guy and if the police weren't in Baltimore standing between the hordes of gangs and the folks folks would be dead.

So anyway the Baltimore Sun should be ashamed it never will be. It's a bad operation. It lost circulation like crazy over the last 10 years. And that's The Memo. More analysis every day on Bill O'Reilly dot com I hope you will check that out and we'll see you soon on Newsmax.

Talking Points Memo: The 'Green New Deal' is Totalitarianism

2019-05-01T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! This week Bill looks at the left's totalitarian attitude heading into the 2020 presidential election.

O'REILLY: Hi I'm Bill O'Reilly and this is the Talking Points Memo.

You know there's always been a divide between younger Americans and those of us who are more mature, for better word. There's an old adage Horace Greeley once said, Go West young man. And what Greeley was getting at was that there was far more opportunity to make a good life for yourself in the western part of the United States in the 19th century because you could forge your own way, you could build a business or a farm or whatever.

Self-reliance. Well now in America the younger people are going away from the self-reliance deal into the government should provide for us philosophy. And it's very interesting to watch in the headline here is the Green New Deal and a soundbite caught my attention I used it on Bill O'Reilly.com in my analysis there.

Beto O'Rourke fading fast as the Democratic contender because of Mayor Pete. He said to a group, said on MSNBC of course. I want to make sure those who work in the oil and gas industry, those who work in the fossil fuel industry are brought along as partners to make sure that we make this transition in the 10 years we have left to us.

Now was Mr. O'Rourke saying the world is going to end in 10 years? That global warming climate change is going to cause the death of mankind? I don't really know. And of course the MSNBC anchor... Yeah oh yeah yeah of course they didn't say, Well what do you mean? But no no no no no no.

But it is clear, clear that Beto O'Rourke and many many other of the Democratic contenders want the Green New Deal and The Green New Deal is essentially the government controls every aspect of our lives. Everything.

What we eat what we drive what kind of appliances we have in our house, what kind of doctor we can go to see. What kind of job we get, how much we're paid in that job. All of it is tied into the Green New Deal. So this is central apparatus in Washington D.C. and in the state capitals which would carry out Washington's orders, that would provide a new deal for Americans that would wipe out any kind of climate menace.

Now this is insane on a number of fronts but the most important for the younger Americans to understand and I don't believe they will is that you are basically saying we'd like Joseph Stalin to come in here and run the United States because you cannot impose this kind of thin, this green new deal, unless you have totalitarianism. You can't.

The government has to say this is what you're going to do and if you don't do it we're going to punish you. So if you drive a car that we don't like, you'll be fined or we'll take the car away or we will arrest you. If you eat food that we don't believe is proper. We're gonna make you pay for it, not the food but the action of actually eating it.

So it becomes a dependency and many many young Americans, maybe most, are willing to sacrifice their autonomy for dependency.

They want to be dependent on a government to tell them what to do because then climate change would go away. I'm telling you ladies and gentlemen I've seen some pretty frightening things in my 45 years in journalism. When I read polls that say millions and millions of Americans under the age of 35 want socialism, want the Green New Deal. Think that Ocasio Cortez, Beto O'Rourke and the others are brilliant people.

It frightens me. It really does.

Because this kind of stuff does lead to a totalitarian government, a strong man. They think trumps the threat? Trumps a capitalist. He's a free marketeer, he's a libertarian socially. This? This is close to fascism.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax, reminding you we will have more commentary on BillOReilly.com and you might want to check out my new book Killing the SS. Great Father's Day gift. Mom might like it too but it's a little tough and also Premium Membership on our website, BillOReilly.com, great fathers and mothers day gifts and we will see you soon.

O'Reilly: The Future Shock in the Tax Realm

2019-04-17T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK!

O'Reilly is on Newsmax TV analyzing Bernie Sanders' Townhall on Fox News. Why did he do so well?

O'REILLY: Hi I'm Bill O'Reilly and this is the Talking Points Memo.

Bernie Sanders takes on Fox News. All right so they had a little town hall meeting on FNC with Bernie Sanders which was a smart move on both sides. So Fox News wants to get out of the "oh we are a conservative network" niche and try to expand its reach. And Bernie Sanders defies the Democratic Party by saying look I'm going to go on and spread my message of socialism wherever I want and you guys are afraid to do it so you know I'll be considered courageous.

So you'll remember the Democratic National Committee said well we're not going to let Fox News have any debates. This is foolish.

So Sanders shows up last night and that two and a half million people watch which is a little higher than the audience from 630 to 730 is on FNC every day. And he's there with two moderators Martha McCallum and Bret Bair and about I don't know Luta 20 people most of whom like Bernie Sanders. So you've got to figure they mean some kind of deal that they had his people in there, at least some. So the debate itself wasn't really a debate. That's a wrong word.

The interview on Bernie Sanders allowed the senator to basically say whatever he wanted to say unchallenged because the moderators couldn't be perceived to be hostile. Now, I'm watching this and I'm going boy this is just great for Bernie Sanders because the man has been on the campaign trail now for four years.

And he's got his rap down and he's heard these questions before and whatever you say to him he's going to... you know and that the new thing is that he's a millionaire twice over because he wrote a book and got a lot of money for the book.

And the reason he wrote a book was because he ran for president and he's a star because he ran for president which tells you why 19 Democrats are running for president, they want to be millionaires too. They want to get books and lectures. They know, most of them obviously you know they're not going to win. Bernie Sanders is not going to be the brains in the United States. He won't even get the Democratic nomination. Mark my words.

OK so Sanders then is confronted with Miss MacCallum and Mr. Bair both seasoned journalists, who ask him predictable questions that he knows are coming and he knows the answer to. He's got them rehearsed. So I'm sitting there going what good is this? We've heard Bernie Sanders' rap for five years now.

He's a socialist.

He wants everybody to have a level playing field. He wants Medicare for all. He don't really care how much it costs. He wants heavy taxation on the affluent and corporations. But here's how you handle Bernie Sanders. And he would never come up against me in a million years because we gave him the opportunity. Never.

Say hey senator... can you explain to me because I'm a simple man, not nearly as smart as you are. Why the economy today in America under Donald Trump is so successful? So many people working and wages rising after eight years of Barack Obama not rising. I wouldn't throw in Barack Obama thing but you know so many people working wages rising. Why do you think that is Senator?

Now there is a question that gets away from his rehearsed answer. See. He's got, he can't say it's not good. That's a lie. And if it is good why is it good? What is propelling the economy? The answer obviously is the corporate tax cut. Corporations as predicted have more money to invest and hire people and expand. That's why but that's what Bernie Sanders wants. He wants higher taxation so corporations wouldn't expand.

See that's where that question leads. Now that's a worthy discussion. That's what should have happened. And it's simple. So why doesn't it happen more? I'm not going to disparage my peers on television news. The newspapers forget about it, they're not going to give you an honest play no matter what. But television as you can see with your own eyes. And I'm not going to disparage them but I will tell you this... very few people think anymore.

You don't see Mike Wallace, the late Mike Wallace. You don't see that anymore. You see a bunch of people who ask the same questions. Most of them have an ideology on display. They're not thinking.

That is the Talking Points Memo. I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax reminding you that Bill O'Reilly.com has snappy and honest commentary every day. We hope you go to Bill O'Reilly.com and Father's Day and Mother's Day is coming up. Killing the SS an excellent history book that both mom dad grandma granddad will like we will be check that out.

And we'll see you soon.

O'Reilly: The Future Shock in the Tax Realm

2019-04-10T07:00:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK!

O'Reilly is on Newsmax TV talking all things taxes as we head into tax season. California's tax plan is essentially socialism - and this is what the Democrats want for the rest of the country. Bill has a solution to stop the madness...

O'REILLY: Hi I'm Bill O'Reilly and this is the Talking Points Memo. Future shock in the tax realm.

All right, so about a week and you got to file taxes. Refunds are way down because Americans were earning good money, can only deduct ten thousand dollars in expenses, you can't write off your mortgage and you can't write off state or local taxes.

So you know, I got to pay more but that's OK with me. I want the country to prosper as long as I'm not gouged.

But let's take a look at what's going on in California.

The reason I point out California not only the nation's most populous state but what happens there in the liberal realm usually goes to Washington.

So this is what... if you live in California this is what you're looking at. All right so the state has the highest state tax in the country. It can reach 10 percent in some areas because they have local taxes tacked on to the state taxes. So you can get as high as 10. All right that's in addition to what you pay to feds.

Now there are only three states in the union that allow that... to and local taxes to state taxes. So right off... you're earning money in California and right off the jump you are paying federal tax and an extraordinary high state tax.

Local tax ok, ready, cigarettes, two dollars and 87 cents a pack. So don't smoke.

Gasoline. All right. Gasoline tax, second highest in the country. California dropped three bucks a gallon. Three bucks a gallon to the state gasoline tax.

Liquor tax through the roof, don't drink.

California property tax, 16th lowest because the folks voted on that and they can't raise the property taxes. Prop 13. California has levied on both residents and nonresidents.

So if I go to California to do a show I have to pay tax.

If a baseball player goes and plays a game and Dodgers or the Angels they pay tax with the Giants, they have to pay a tax just playing a game, whatever pro-rated.

OK capital gains, this is insane.

Capital gains if you buy a stock and you sold stock for a gain. If it's less than a year you pay what's your general tax rate is 35 percent. If it's a year or more 20 percent. Not in California. In California that means you pay everything no matter how long you hold a stock. At your personal income rate. So if you're 35 you pay them 35. That's on top of the Feds.

So you can't make any money in stock market if you're a California person and you could lose a bundle. Stocks go up like Vegas.

Now new taxes Sacramento: this is what they want.

Firearms. Anybody with a gun for any purpose, big big tax. OK.

Soda soft drinks. All right. Tax all of that.

Tire change, get a flat? Want to change a tire? They want three bucks.

State wants three bucks if you have to buy a tire, change your tire. Drinking water. All right. They want a fee of 95 cents a month on everybody in California just to have water coming into the house. Goes to the state and you pay for the water. All right. This is so insane. What's happening there. And then they're going to slap a tax, they want to on any household that has more than three million dollars in assets. Yet another tax on top of whatever you paid before to accumulate the 3 million you pay more.

This is socialism. This is confiscation. All right.

That's what's going to happen if Americans continue to elect liberal politicians. Now the Democratic Party I mean they're buying into all of this. California is run by Democrats. Hardly is a Republican Party in the state. So think about it. This is... they don't want capitalism anymore. State wants to take what you have through the form of all these pernicious tax business and this is no exaggeration. This is happening right now. If you live in California you know the pain you're going through and it's going to get worse. Tax on changing a tire? They'll fight a tax on every single thing... mowing your lawn it will be a tax. Hiring a gardener is going to be a tax. Whatever it is they want everything that you have. So they can redistribute to other groups.

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax and that is the Talking Points Memo.

Want to remind you that I do commentary every night on Bill O'Reilly.com. Now a lot of people say well where are you? We miss you on... BillOReilly.com is where I am and you will like it. And also Killing the SS still selling very well after seven months in a marketplace if you haven't read it I think you'll like it. And we have the United States of Trump coming up in September. You can preorder that book on BillOReilly.com, Amazon. All the other dotcoms. All right.

We'll see you soon.

Why Democrats Oppose Border Security

2019-02-14T20:36:00Z

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is BACK! O'Reilly is on Newsmax TV to give specifics on why the Democratic party objects to a barrier on the border.

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly, and this is the Talking Points Memo.

You know, this whole border wall thing is phony. It's not what the powers that be want you to believe it is. It's really disturbing.

So the Democratic Party opposes building a border fence, wall, barrier or whatever it may be.

Why?

There is never a cogent reason - you can give all the stats you want. Millions of people come in here through the southern border. Tons of narcotics flow in every month. People get hurt all over the border region.

So why would you object to a barrier? Again, no cogent reason.

But here it is, you ready? The Democratic Party has taken control of the nation's largest state California.

It's a one party state. Republicans don't have a chance to for power in California. They used to, Richard Nixon came out of California. Ronald Reagan, two term governor even Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a kind of Republican he got elected.

Not anymore.

1970, there were three million Hispanics living in the Golden State, Latinos. All right. three million. Today 15 million, 55 percent of Hispanics eligible to vote in California are Democrats, 55 percent. Only 17 percent are Republican, 24 percent.

So they have no party allegiance that has driven the Democratic Party to power in the Golden State. Because you go from 3 million to 15 million. All right. And more than half are Democrats.

You just do the math and people are moving out of California because of the progressive policies, high taxation.

Now Democratic Party saw that and they control the largest amount of electoral votes in the presidential election because California's biggest state. The same things happen here in New York. Same thing, influx of foreign nationals. It's changed the whole voting pattern.

Democrats control New York City. Top to bottom. OK.

Alexandra Ocasio Cortez was out of the Bronx and because the city is so huge they dominate the state. So the Democrats hold the governorship and both houses in the state legislation in Albany and what do we have? Progressive policies. So the Democratic Party sees this. They know this and they say you know what. If we can have open borders, if we can get as many Latinos in through Mexico we're going to obtain power in other states like Arizona, which is much more liberal than it used to be. And we're going to be able to spread that as the Latino community expands in the United States and breaking 3 to 1, 3 to 1 Latinos give the Democratic Party over the Republican Party.

And that makes sense. Because if you are a foreign national, a poor person in particular and you come to the hyper competitive society that is America you need the help. You don't speak English. You're going to need help. And what party promises you entitlements, the Democratic Party. The Republican Party favors a safety net but they're a party of self-reliance. They don't want big government intrusion. The Democratic Party wants to hand out everything to everybody.

Every time there is a welfare bill that demands work most Democrats vote against it. Now Bill Clinton signed such a bill if you remember President Clinton, not anymore.

So if you're a foreign national you come to the United States you're going to sign up with the party that's going to promise you stuff. Right? That's going to promise you income equality, that's going to promise you social justice, that's going to promise you that they will punish the white power structure.

And that's what the Democratic Party is all about these days. You know, everybody knows it.

Undeniable that that's what the border wall stuff is all about a secure southern border stops the flow of millions of Latinos into the United States. This is not a racist thing. It's just a fact thing. This is a political thing. Nothing to do with race. If Latinos were breaking three to one Republican, the Democrats would oppose. They put the wall up so fast, you go what's that?!

I'm Bill O'Reilly for Newsmax and that is the Talking Points Memo.

I remind you that we do commentary on BillOReilly.com every night - we hope you check it out.

Crimes Against Humanity

2017-04-12T04:16:00Z

As we reported last night, it falls to America to stop war crimes and atrocities all over the world.

Other countries will not do that - including great powers like China and Russia.

So it is left to we the people and our elected representatives to decide who we will save.

It is a gut-wrenching decision, as millions of people have been murdered all over the world by sick tyrants.

President Trump's missile attack on Syria sent a new message to the world - that the USA is going to hold war criminals accountable, at least to some extent.

The previous president, Barack Obama, would not do that.

Instead, he used negotiations, which often failed.

Dec. 6 2016

OBAMA: “We’ve eliminated Syria’s declared chemical weapons program. All of these steps have helped keep us safe and helped keep our troops safe. Those are the result of diplomacy. And sustained diplomatic efforts, no matter how frustrating or difficult they sometimes appear, are going to be required to resolve the conflicts roiling the in Middle East, from Yemen, to Syria, to Israel and Palestine.”

Now we know that Syria did not eliminate its chemical weapons program, casting grave doubt on whether Iran will obey the nuke deal President Obama made.

It is beyond a doubt that the Syrian dictator Assad is a war criminal.

But there are many other countries around the world in the same awful category.

According to human rights watch, the North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un allows the following:

Systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations, including murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortion on and on.

Roughly 18 million people in North Korea do not get enough food, according to a United Nations report released last month.

But that is not enough to attack the country.

There is some sense of responsibility on the North Korean people themselves. Sometimes you have to fight for your life and rights. The United States cannot declare war on North Korea despite the atrocities.

But if the loony dictator continues to violate international weapons laws, targeted military action can be taken with justification.

And then there is ISIS, which routinely rapes and kidnaps women, sells them into slavery, executes homosexuals, slaughters Christians and basically kills and maims at will.

ISIS is currently under attack by a coalition of nations headed by - you guessed it - us.

And there is no excuse for not wiping ISIS off the face of the earth.

A lesser group, Boko Haram, based in Nigeria, Africa, kills children and Reuters is reporting may have murdered 15,000 people over the years.

That Muslim extremist group uses female and child suicide bombers. At least 44 kids were killed in suicide attacks in 2015 alone.

The world has not yet united against Boko Haram, but it should.

So you can see that President Trump, the leader of the free world, has his hands full.

For eight years, President Obama expressed indignation over crimes against humanity and did attack evildoers with drones.

But the problem is getting worse worldwide, and now it's up to President Trump to see if he can control it.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump, Commander-in-Chief

2017-04-11T03:28:00Z

As we reported last week, the president's job approval numbers are likely to go up because he took strong action against Syria after the tyrant Assad gassed his own people.

Right off the bat Mr. Trump went up three percent in a new CBS News poll. That is likely to rise even further this week.

When CBS asked, do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. launching missiles against Syria?

57% approve

36% disapprove

8% don't know.

Do you have confidence in Donald Trump's ability to handle the situation in Syria?

41% confident

54% not confident

And finally, do you think it's necessary for Congress to approve any further U.S. action in Syria?

A whopping 69% say it is that Congress should get involved.

25% do not feel it's necessary.

There are a number of developments on the military front.

U.S. warships are heading toward the Korean Peninsula because the nutty dictator of that country continues to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law.

Also the two U.S. warships in the eastern Mediterranean continue to monitor Syria.

There's also an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the George H.W. Bush.

So you can see that President Trump and the Pentagon are sending signals that if world order is threatened, America will respond.

It's just a damn shame that we are the only country willing to take this stand.

There is no reason for Russia to prop up Assad in Syria, the man is a war criminal.

Also, China does not try to control the North Korea situation when it absolutely could.

Staunch allies like Britain, Australia, Canada and France do help us out, but it's on a limited basis.

Unfortunately policing the world falls to America, with all the danger and expense that entails.

President Trump would be wise to pick his spots. The attack on Syria worked and was approved by most in the world who care about protecting innocent people.

Yes, Russia and Iran are now threatening the USA, but so what? Those countries have thrown in with the devil, and we cannot back away from their bluster.

However, a confrontation with Russia is not what anybody needs, so President Trump would be wise to talk to Putin quietly and try to get the guy to wise up by helping his economy.

Iran is truly a hopeless situation, but the mullahs do not want to commit suicide. How the nuke treaty will eventually play out is one of the great world mysteries.

It is likely that North Korea will be the next problem we have to deal with.

If they test a nuclear device again in violation of international law, something must be done.

Can Donald Trump convince the Chinese to partner up with us against North Korea?

That would end the problem and be good for world order and business.

Again, it is a mystery why the Chinese will not exert their strength and influence on North Korea.

Summing up, President Trump gained a measure of respect for his actions against Syria, the U.S. military is gearing up, but caution is the word.

And that's the memo.

The USA Attacks Syria

2017-04-08T04:02:00Z

Last night around 9 Eastern Time, 60 missiles were launched from American war ships in the eastern Mediterranean.

Fifty-nine missiles hit their targets.

The goal was to destroy an air base from which Syrian planes recently dropped sarin gas on civilians, killing 30 children and 20 women according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

According to reporting based on a variety of agencies, this is the fifth time, at least, the Syrian dictator Assad has violated the Geneva Conventions and used poison gas to kill civilians.

Back in 2012 President Barack Obama threatened Assad.

OBAMA: “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable.”

But Assad was not held accountable.

Instead the Obama administration did what it always did, talked.

And announced a deal with the dictator.

A fascinating footnote is that Susan Rice was on point alongside John Kerry:

SUSAN RICE: “We were able to find a solution that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished.”

((EDIT))

JOHN KERRY: “With respect to Syria, we struck a deal where we got 100% of the chemical weapons out.”

Obviously, a false belief.

For years Assad has been protected by the Russians, who were warned the attack was coming last night so they could move their personnel out of the air field.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): “Russia should be embarrassed and ashamed. They are saying there were no nerve agents or chemical weapons left. We know that for the better part of this year, Assad has been using chlorine bombs against innocent civilians and population centers, and now yesterday, a couple days ago a nerve agent, sarin. So the Russians have been covering for Assad and if it were not for the Russians, Assad would not still be in power.”

That's true. Putin continues to prop up Assad while thousands of people die and at least five million Syrians are refugees.

Most sane people support the missile attack last night. Sane is the key word here.

FMR. REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): “It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think there is a zero chance he would have done this deliberately.”

The former congressman apparently believing Assad was set up by somebody.

Now the morality of the attack is certainly acceptable.

When you have war crimes being openly committed, a noble nation will confront that.

Unfortunately, noble nations are in short supply these days, the USA being an exception.

Also America’s national security is in play because poison gas can be used by terrorists.

Assad has a close relationship with Iran and Hezbollah.

Once chemical weapons become acceptable, the world becomes an unstable place.

Talking Points has said for years that Assad’s air force should have been destroyed a long time ago and NATO should have established safe zones inside Syria to protect the innocent.

Under President Obama none of that was remotely possible because of his strategy of retreat.

But now the new President Donald Trump is sending a message to the world: The USA will not tolerate war crimes from nations like Syria.

The downside is for every action, there is a reaction.

So security is heightened here in the USA, as we become an even bigger target for evil-doers.

Summing up, America was justified in destroying the Syrian airport, rogue nations should be dealt with by the world but if they are not, the lone superpower has a responsibility.

Even most of the Trump-haters in Congress agree that if we can stop children from being gassed to death, we should do so.

And that's the memo.

A Good Week for President Trump

2017-04-07T03:30:00Z

If you've noticed an uptick in the media Trump hatred, it is no accident. After a few rocky weeks, the president has had a very good few days.

He met with the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan, both men praising him lavishly.

This is important because Egypt and Jordan are helping America in the fight against ISIS.

Also, Mr. Trump got an enormous break when the Susan Rice story hit.

Whether the former national security advisor did anything wrong or not, the story has taken attention away from allegations about the Russia-Trump campaign stuff.

Even though the left-wing media does not want to cover the Susan Rice story, fair news agencies like the Fox News Channel are discussing it and the American people are aware of it.

That helps deflect the liberal bias against President Trump.

And then there is the looming appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Democrats in the Senate blocked a vote today, but now Republicans have changed the rules and the judge is likely to be confirmed tomorrow.

That's a big win for President Trump because the judge is a traditional man who will not rule on his own political beliefs, as some Supreme Court justices do.

Gorsuch is despised on the left because they know he could be on the court for decades, and he is not going to carry water for anyone.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some conservative Americans are disappointed by Justice Gorsuch because he is not a political guy.

All in all, President Trump has nominated a fair man to the court, a person who will not buy into the myth that the United States needs to be changed in dramatic ways.

Finally, Mr. Trump will meet with the Chinese president, an avowed communist, over the next couple days as he hopes to get China's help to subdue North Korea, which has become a major threat to the world.

Mr. Trump also wants to modify trade deals so more American products are sold in China, which is the most populated country on earth with nearly a billion-and-a-half people.

So things have gone very well this week for Donald Trump.

But every day is an adventure.

However, it is safe to say the Trump haters are very frustrated this evening.

And that's the memo.

Do Powerful People in Washington Really Want to Know the Truth?

2017-04-06T03:53:00Z

You may remember that the IRS was accused of auditing some conservative groups for political reasons. That is illegal.

The woman in charge of the office where that allegedly happened was Lois Lerner.

She was called to testify in front of a congressional committee.

She took the Fifth:

March 22, 2013 - House Oversight Committee hearing:

LOIS LERNER: “And while I would very much like to answer the committee's questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing.”

So after that Ms. Lerner packed up and left the IRS with a nice government pension. Absolutely nothing happened to her.

And we never learned if higher government officials were involved.

However, we did learn this when I asked President Obama about the IRS situation:

O'REILLY: “You're saying no corruption?”

OBAMA: “No.”

O'REILLY: “None? No?”

OBAMA: “There were some -- there were some bone-headed decisions...”

O'REILLY: “Bone-headed decisions...”

OBAMA: “-- out of -- out of a local office...”

O'REILLY: “But no mass corruption?”

OBAMA: “Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.”

Talking Points believes the Obama administration did not want to know what happened with the IRS. The leftwing media did not want to know, nor did the Democratic Party.

Today we have two big time political allegations: Whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and whether National Security Advisor Susan Rice was spying on the Trump campaign and transition team using her position with President Obama to surveil and hurt Mr. Trump.

Answers to both of those questions have not been provided to the American people, as they must be if we are to keep our election system legitimate.

The FBI is investigating the Russia deal. I'm not sure where the agency is on the illegal surveillance issue. The bureau has not defined it.

But Congress is looking into Ms. Rice:

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): "I have asked the Intelligence Committee, Senator Burr, Senator Warner, to conduct a bipartisan investigation of this whole episode. They will conduct it and hopefully, in the end, we will find out what happened, and they will issue a report, I hope on a bipartisan basis.”

Not likely, as Democrats and the liberal media have already acquitted Susan Rice.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): “One of the central figures the Republicans went after and after and after was Susan Rice. And after two years they could find nothing that Susan Rice did wrong.”

Congressman Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaking about Ms. Rice's role in the Benghazi investigation and putting forth the opinion that she is a scapegoat even before any testimony is heard.

Does Congressman Schiff really want to know what happened in the surveillance deal?

You make the call.

But it is obvious his fellow travelers on the left do not want to know.

In fact, the loons are now branding the whole thing racial.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: “Did she do something wrong? There is no information indicating that. So they are making her, you know, basically, they're defaming her without any reason to do so because she's a woman. Maybe because she's a black woman.”

Sure.

As Talking Points said yesterday, Susan Rice is entitled to the presumption of innocence and should be called by Congress to testify as soon as possible.

But with Easter break looming, that call will be down the road.

At that time I expect Ms. Rice to take the Fifth, just as Lois Lerner did.

That means others in government will have to step forward to testify about what Susan Rice did or did not do in order for we the people to know.

Today President Trump said that he believes the surveillance situation is "going to be the biggest story. It's such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time."

It is clear the president has a vested interest in this having tweeted he was surveilled by President Obama himself. So obviously Mr. Trump would like to know the truth.

But the anti-Trump folks will try to prevent sunlight on Susan Rice, no question about it.

Because if the former national security advisor was using her very high office to help the Democratic Party before and after the election, that is a huge scandal and President Obama will have to be questioned.

That's a big if, and premature conclusions as well as speculation are the enemies of true justice.

The polls say that most Americans want answers to the Russian intrusion into the presidential election, and I believe most of us want to know the full Susan Rice story as well.

If the federal government cannot define both fairly quickly, this nation is in major trouble.

America simply has to have a justice system that works.

And that's the memo.

The Trump Surveillance Story Explodes

2017-04-05T04:45:00Z

Tonight we will give you just the facts, no speculation, no hysteria.

The latest from Fox News correspondents Adam Housley and Malia Zimmerman is this:

"Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance."

Apparently she was doing this for more than a year leading up to the November election.

That is very troubling and if it can be proven, Susan Rice is in major trouble.

Also, because the national security advisor was so close to President Obama, he will have to answer questions as well.

So you can see an enormous story is developing and it really doesn't matter whether the liberal mainstream media ignores it. Congress and the FBI will not.

To be fair to Ms. Rice, she denies all wrongdoing and should be given the presumption of innocence. That is the American way.

MSNBC

SUSAN RICE, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: “There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to, name not provided, just ‘U.S. person.’ And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was.”

((EDIT))

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: “Did you seek the names of people involved – to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, the people surrounding the president elect, in order to spy on them and expose them?”

RICE: “Absolutely not, for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything.”

MITCHELL: “Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?”

RICE: “I leaked nothing to nobody.”

Nothing to nobody? Interesting phrase.

Now here's my question, if Susan Rice did surveil the Trump people for a year, what was her motive? Why did she do it?

I mean, think about it. This woman is a national security advisor, she's got a lot of work to do.

So why would she be running over to the National Security Agency or the CIA reviewing wiretaps? Summations are sent to the White House every day.

And why if a Trump person was involved, would she want the name?

The key question here is motivation.

Now I know many cable news programs will speculate, will convict Susan Rice without a trial or attempt to cover for her as we saw last night, but we're not going to do that.

The Factor is in business to report the truth and give opinion based upon the facts.

Let's sum up: Talking Points believes the reporting from Adam Housley and Malia Zimmerman is accurate.

Other news agencies are getting information as well.

So at this point you can assume that Susan Rice took an amazing interest in what the Trump people were doing well before the folks voted.

Why she did that, we don't know.

What we do know is that both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees should subpoena Susan Rice immediately.

And both committees should send written questions to President Obama.

Also, the FBI should interview Ambassador Rice and conduct a very thorough investigation of her behavior.

That's reasonable is it not?

Because if the Trump campaign or the transition team were being spied upon by the Obama administration, that has to be uncovered.

Or am I wrong?

And that's the memo.

A Civil War in Congress

2017-04-04T00:54:00Z

It is really all about hating Trump, not partisan politics.

There is no doubt that Judge Neil Gorsuch is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court and he will, the confirmation coming on Friday one way or another.

Republicans in the Senate must prevail on the judge or the entire party and the president will be gravely damaged.

And that's exactly what the Democratic Party wants.

The strategy is simple: Oppose every change the president wants to make, everything he wants to do.

Create as much mayhem as possible, then tell the American people that Mr. Trump doesn't know how to govern.

Meanwhile, the American people get hammered because worthy persons like Judge Gorsuch are disparaged and innovative policies are sabotaged.

I mean, did you watch any of the Gorsuch hearings?

I don't want to compare the judge to Jesus but it was exactly the same thing. Democratic senators acting like Pharisees trying to trap the judge into saying something controversial, trying to paint the man as someone not worthy of being on the Court.

Fair-minded folks respect sincerely held political differences. I know I do.

But political hit jobs are obvious, and that's what those hearings featured - gotcha questions designed to demean.

So we now have an opposition agenda primarily based on hate, not what's best for the country.

Just listen to the rhetoric on the left; it is vitriolic in the extreme.

The Trump-haters justify their behavior by saying the president is destroying the country. The issues of illegal immigration, global warming and national security have created fury on the left.

And as Talking Points stated last week, moderate Democrats are under heavy pressure to support the hate-Trump strategy.

It was interesting to watch Missouri Senator Clare McCaskill describe Judge Gorsuch as being cold against the regular folks.

Missouri is trending Republican these days, so the senator may soon come to regret her stance.

Finally, many Republicans opposed President Obama's agenda; there was little common ground there.

But five GOP senators voted to confirm the very liberal Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, President Obama got his trade authority and debt limits were raised.

The system was strained under Mr. Obama, but it functioned.

Now political hatred is directly threatening our republic.

And we the people will pay a huge price if things don't change.

That's the memo.

The Brawl Over Sanctuary Cities

2017-03-31T04:05:00Z

As you may know, the federal government is threatening cities that do not cooperate with Homeland Security with the loss of federal grant money.

And now the city of Seattle is suing the feds over that. The first of many lawsuits, I believe.

The basic problem is that cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco do not want to hold illegal aliens they've arrested until ICE can pick them up.

Those cities want to release the aliens on bail or their own recognizance.

Talking Points believes that is dangerous and irresponsible.

If there is a detainer request on someone who should not be in this country, that request should be honored.

The sanctuary city people say they will obey a warrant for an illegal alien.

But that is a much more complicated process. Immigration agents have to go to a federal judge and present evidence before a warrant will be signed.

Takes much more time than a detainer, which just requires the signature of an ICE agent.

In a moment, Judge Jeanine Pirro will tell us about the backlog of cases, which is astronomical.

Now, why is all this happening?

In a city like New York, the mayor is a far left individual who was elected by very liberal voters.

Mayor de Blasio sees himself as a defender of the poor and downtrodden.

He opposes immigration regulations in general and is fine with millions of undocumented people living in and visiting this city.

De Blasio has absolutely no problem with that.

So the mind set of de Blasio, Rahm Emanuel in Chicago and other far left mayors is that their constituency wants open borders and amnesty.

So they play to that constituency.

Enter the federal government, which now wants to enforce immigration law because President Trump made that a hallmark of his campaign.

And so you have two opposing forces with little chance of reconciliation.

It should be noted that the federal appeals courts have never required local governments to comply with detainer requests.

It's optional. You can't be arrested if you defy a detainer.

An official can be arrested if he or she defies a warrant.

Finally, to make sanctuary cities comply with federal law, the Trump administration will now withhold money from them in the form of Justice Department grants.

That means that cities like Seattle, which receive millions of dollars to beef up local law enforcement and to institute safety programs, may not get the money any longer.

Which is why Seattle is suing.

The whole thing is a giant mess and reflects the huge division in this country.

Will sanctuary cities be forced to comply? Doubtful.

But they will pay a price.

And that's the memo.

A Brand New Poll on President Trump

2017-03-30T03:18:00Z

According to CBS News, the president's job approval rating stands at 40%.

Fifty-two percent disapprove.

Seven percent don't know.

That's not surprising for a president with no prior political experience who is vowing to "drain the swamp" in Washington.

This time next year President Trump's job approval ratings will be much more meaningful.

Next question - what do you think is the main reason the Republican health care plan did not pass?

Donald Trump didn't compromise enough - 14%.

Congressional Republicans didn't compromise - 14%.

Congressional Democrats didn't compromise - 14%.

The bill just wasn't popular - 49%.

So my analysis on Monday was correct.

O'REILLY: “But I don't think the President is going to be blamed for this, that's my opinion as a very astute analyst.”

KRAUTHAMMER: “Look – he ran –“

O'REILLY: “Wait, wait. It's not like the folks out there are going, ‘Hey, Trump screwed this up,’ they're going – ‘Congress screwed it up.’ And both parties did.”

Next question from CBS News:

Do you think it's necessary for the FBI to investigate a possible link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?

63% - necessary.

33% - not necessary.

Finally, do you think Donald Trump's offices were wiretapped during the presidential campaign?

Very likely - 22%.

Somewhat likely - 25%.

Not very likely - 20%.

Not at all likely - 30%.

So the country is pretty much split down the middle on that question, most likely along ideological lines.

Now here's a question I would like posed to the American people. Do you believe that the hatred toward President Trump has reached a dangerous level for this country?

The answer is yes.

Whether you like the president or not, it is brutally unfair to try to undermine his administration as some of his opponents are trying to do.

We have the Democratic Party refusing to cooperate on anything.

And now it looks like Senate rules will have to be changed to appoint Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because not enough Democrats will support the man.

It is clear that Judge Gorsuch is qualified and it's also clear the most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senator Chuck Schumer would look askance at any of his colleagues who support the judge.

Many Democrat Senators fear Mr. Schumer.

As fair-minded people will concede, there was hatred toward President Obama.

But in the first months of his tenure, there was no apparent undermining of his administration.

But now we have a climate of hatred where there are no rules.

And the media feeds the beast every single day.

As a historian, I can tell you I have never seen the national press despise a president more than they do Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon might have come close at the end of his term, but what we have now is unfair and destructive for America.

Hate should not be part of the political landscape.

And that's the memo.

A Liberal Congresswoman Attacks President Trump

2017-03-29T03:29:00Z

For years Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, has been an outspoken left-wing voice, highlighting the oppression she believes black Americans experience.

Talking Points believes Ms. Waters is totally sincere in her belief system and although many Americans disagree with her extremism at times, she deserves a hearing and should not be marginalized by political opponents.

In fact I made that mistake this morning on Fox & Friends. I said in a simple jest that the congresswoman's hair distracted me. Well that was stupid, I apologize. It had no place in the conversation.

Now, it’s not necessary to poke fun at anyone who is speaking from the heart in the public arena in my opinion.

But it is necessary to analyze what is being said:

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): “Despite the fact that America has not always been there for us, we’ve always been there for America. We have fought in America’s wars. We have suffered discrimination, we have suffered isolation and undermining, but we stand up for America, oftentimes when others who think they are more patriotic, who say they are more patriotic, do not. When we fight against this president, and we point out how dangerous he is for this society and for this country, we’re fighting for the democracy.”

Now it would be instructive for Ms. Waters to come on The Factor to define her beef. What’s bothering her about President Trump?

But of course she will not do that, way too risky, because she would be challenged by and she doesn’t want to be challenged.

The record shows that President Trump has put forth a philosophy that would certainly help the poor, including African-Americans in that category.

The more jobs that are created, the higher incomes will be on every level.

The more Americans hired, the easier it will be to get a job.

The more companies expand, the more demand there will be for labor.

The more discipline imposed in public schooling, the more the kids will learn and education is the most important anti-poverty program there is.

So what exactly is Maxine Waters talking about when she says Mr. Trump is dangerous for America?

I have no idea, and I do not think Ms. Waters has any clue either.

She is just spouting the left-wing company line, and anyone who disagrees with her … well, she doesn’t brook disagreement.

That's not patriotism madam, that's demagoguery.

It would take a miracle, but I really wish liberal advocates like Congresswoman Waters would stop the ideological nonsense and really focus on what America offers every responsible citizen --opportunity, a variety of ways to success, freedom of expression that Ms. Waters makes good use of and a real chance to help yourself and help others in your life.

But in order to succeed in this country, you must be self-reliant, not dependent on the entitlement system that Maxine Waters loves so much.

You must work hard.

You must learn and develop a skill off the knowledge that you acquire in school.

And you must be honest.

That's the message Congresswoman Waters and others should be spreading.

Patriotism comes in many forms.

Questioning the patriotism of others and bashing a new president isn’t patriotic.

It is useless.

And that's the memo.

How Politicians Are Hurting the American People

2017-03-28T03:04:00Z

The failure to pass a new healthcare proposal in the House has hurt the Republican Party and President Trump.

The situation is confusing, but let me break it down so even the politicians can understand it.

There are three basic things that America needs from a fair healthcare plan.

First, a reasonable cost. Working people cannot be punished with high insurance premiums.

Second, that the poor who cannot afford insurance are given access to healthcare in some way, Medicaid perhaps the best way.

And third, that all Americans are protected from medical catastrophe.

So if I am a sitting Republican congressman, how do I vote on the new proposal to replace Obamacare?

Well it's impossible to know if the proposed new law would lower costs for everyone, but if health insurance companies are eventually allowed to compete all across America, which they cannot do now, market forces would likely bring the cost down.

Also, I am evaluating the entire situation - what good does it do my party and the president if I oppose the first proposal the House put forth knowing that proposal will be changed in the Senate and come back to me for another vote?

It seems logical that you move the process along and then at the end when the entire bill is before you, you vote your conscience.

But by throwing the whole thing out for ideological reasons, nothing is accomplished other than the Republicans looking bad.

Now this analysis is not based on any party sentiment by me, it's all about you what's best for the folks.

It's a given that the Democrats are not going to turn on Obamacare; they'll support it to the bitter end.

Yes, they may tweak it a bit, but they want a giant entitlement that costs a fortune and hurts working Americans by making them pay higher premiums.

So if the Republican Party doesn't unite, Obamacare stays the way it is, which is the situation right now.

The big reveal here is that conservative Republicans who voted against the new proposal will not compromise.

REP. TED POE (R-TX): “There's some members of the Freedom Caucus, they'd vote no against the Ten Commandments if it came up for a vote. I think it's time that the Freedom Caucus work together with other members of the Republican Party.”

Mr. Poe has left the Freedom Caucus, frustrated about the healthcare stance.

The bigger picture is this: President Trump did get hurt by the healthcare vote, but it's not a catastrophe; all presidents lose on major issues - President Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Bay but never got it done.

He wanted much more social justice spending never happened.

Making new laws is very tough as it should be.

The Trump administration would be wise to move along and try to get a new tax code.

That issue should unite all Republicans, who believe the free marketplace is the way to provide prosperity for Americans.

If some Republicans oppose lower taxes, that will be stunning.

But the president needs to move quickly.

The tax reduction plan should become clear in early May. We need new tax rates for both workers and corporations, and we need to phase out deductions that only benefit the very wealthy.

That doesn't seem to be too much to ask Congress to do.

And that's the memo.

Insanity Over Illegal Immigration

2017-03-23T04:04:00Z

As we reported extensively last night, a 14-year-old girl in Rockville, Maryland was raped in a high school bathroom by two men allegedly in this country illegally.

The incident is beyond shocking. An 18-year-old from Guatemala and a 17-year old from El Salvador were freshmen at the school. Freshmen.

Authorities say they dragged the 14-year-old into a bathroom and brutally raped her.

Fox News covered the story extensively last night, but ABC, NBC and CBS did not cover it on their nightly news broadcasts.

Nor did they cover it this morning.

CNN did not cover the Maryland story in primetime last night.

Ditto MSNBC.

That is beyond anything I have ever seen in my forty years of journalism.

A story of that magnitude ignored by the national media.

We all know why illegal immigration is a political issue.

President Trump has made the apprehension of undocumented criminals a top priority.

The Democratic Party is resisting that, saying that all illegal aliens are being demonized and that presents danger to that community.

Now every fair-minded American knows the immigration system is broken, and Congress has refused to fix it.

As I said last night, we don't know who is here. We don't know where they are and we don't know what they're doing.

'They' being people who illegally enter this country.

It is beyond the pale that even after this poor 14-year-old girl had her life brutalized, the Maryland House of Delegates actually voted to make the state a sanctuary situation.

Thankfully, the Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan has said he will veto that legislation.

But how on earth could members of that Maryland body after this poor young girlgets attacked do that?

It is incomprehensible.

Many Americans have had enough. For decades, Congress has looked the other way as millions of people have poured into the USA without proper credentials.

Most of these people are harmless and many do contribute to our society.

But the fact remains that the federal government has lost control over the immigration process and that many states and cities will not obey federal law, creating anarchy.

Here's the best example I can give you - between January 28th and February 3rd of this year, more than three thousands detainers were ordered by the Department of Homeland Security.

That means that local jurisdictions were asked to hold illegal aliens considered dangerous.

Two-hundred-six of those aliens were released by sanctuary places despite the federal demand.

One-hundred-forty-two of those released came from one place - Travis County in Texas. That's Austin.

We trust Texas officials will stop the madness in Travis County as they have promised.

But you can see how anarchy is being openly practiced in some places.

There comes a time when citizens of any country have to demand justice, demand protection, demand the law be respected.

We have not - have not - come to that time in America.

We have a president who vows to stop the illegal alien criminal madness.

But we have a media that openly opposes that - allowing the sanctuary movement to pretty much run wild.

And that's the memo.

The Most Important Political Story of the Year

2017-03-22T03:51:00Z

Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because they feared that a Democrat winning the White House would appoint another liberal judge to the Supreme Court.

In recent times, the court has often ruled on politics - not the law.

Many Americans fear that, including this one.

Mr. Trump nominated 49-year-old Neil Gorsuch from Colorado, who has a very solid judicial record.

He serves on the 10th Circuit U.S Court of Appeals in Denver.

Today, there were hearings in the Senate because that body must approve Judge Gorsuch to the nation's highest court. Predictably, some liberal politicians do not like the judge simply because he is not a liberal.

So even though his record is stellar and his philosophy independent, some Democratic senators will not vote for him.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling ((EDIT)) I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”

Senator Feinstein should know better.

If judges are free to rule on judicial evolution, that means they become politicians.

All judges in America should have just one rule - what was the intent of the original Constitution?

Again, if they reject that, then they make decisions based upon their political beliefs.

Here's the best example - there's no question the Constitution gives the president the power to stop some foreign nationals from coming to the USA.

But activist judges have blocked President Trump's travel order saying, in essence, it is anti-Muslim.

If that were the case, Muslims from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries would be included in the president's order. They are not.

So everybody knows politics, not the law, is involved here.

And eventually, the president will win in federal court.

But the activist judges don't care. They have temporarily blocked the order and are liberal heroes.

As for Judge Gorsuch, it looks like he's a traditional man who believes the intent of the Constitution should reign.

Again, that seems to be unacceptable to Senator Feinstein and others. They want a political judge. They want a liberal judge.

Finally, the best example of constitutional debate is the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

It is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to have the ability to protect themselves.

Back then, militias were the mechanism - private citizens with guns organizing against threats.

Today, the threats are more personal - terrorists and criminals, not frontier marauders.

Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves against those who would harm them.

That's why firearms cannot be banned.

But they can be limited. You can't have a bazooka or a hand grenade.

That's reasonable. Public safety is involved and individual states have the right to mandate gun laws based upon the wishes of their people.

But the left rejects that and in some cases wants to ban guns outright.

At this point that is unconstitutional. But that could change if the Supreme Court becomes solely a political body dominated by the left.

Summing up, intent, not evolution, should be the litmus test of constitutional law.

And that's why a traditional judge like Neil Gorsuch is a vital situation.

He will likely sit for decades, presiding over a country in the middle of a social civil war.

And that's the memo.

What Happened at the House Intelligence Committee Hearing?

2017-03-21T05:29:00Z

The House Intelligence Committee spent a few hours talking with FBI Chief James Comey and NSA boss Admiral Mike Rogers.

It was clear from the beginning that there was a political agenda, as there always is.

Republican Congress people wanted to know about the leakers - people within government giving classified information to reporters.

That was their top concern.

On the Democratic side, it was the Obama tap - the allegation that President Trump Tweeted out.

At this point, after today's testimony, there is absolutely no evidence President Obama tapped the Trump Tower.

But today, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said there will be more tap information forthcoming, especially about General Flynn.

The fair thing here is to be fair, avoid speculation, but skepticism on the issue is warranted.

In addition to the tap business, Democrats zeroed in on two former members of the Trump Campaign, hoping to link them to the Russians.

First was a man named Roger Stone, who worked for Mr. Trump for two months in 2015.

He was a consultant.

The second was Paul Manafort, who worked for the Trump campaign for approximately five months but did have a powerful position as campaign chairman.

Democrats insinuated that both men were involved in some kind of corrupt scheme, but the admiral and Mr. Comey would not take the bait, saying that the investigation is ongoing and they cannot comment.

Talking Points will be surprised if anything comes of this Russian deal.

However, that controversy is what drove President Trump to accuse President Obama.

Mr. Trump is so infuriated that the media has obsessed on the alleged Russia connection that he lashed out, trying to create a firestorm over the Obama administration's surveillance history.

Problem is, there is no evidence that anything happened at the Trump Tower.

There is evidence that the Obama Administration surveilled journalists and even the German Chancellor. But that does not go to President Trump's point.

The accusation that President Obama was actively involved in harming the Trump Campaign has now harmed the president himself.

He needs the American people to focus on the economy, the new healthcare proposal and border security … not alleged conspiracies.

In the future, the president would be wise to embrace only facts in his pronouncements.

The issue of leaks is of vital importance, and both Comey and Rogers acknowledged that today.

It was instructive to see that no Democrat on the House committee really zeroed in on the leakers.

Talking Points expects, expects the FBI to find not only who leaked stuff about General Flynn and the Russian ambassador, but also who violated the White House protocol by putting out the president's conversations with the prime minister of Australia and the president of Mexico.

If the FBI cannot do that - cannot arrest the leakers - this country is in major trouble.

Summing up, Republicans want to get away from the tap thing. Democrats continue to peddle the Russia/Trump campaign situation.

And that's the memo.

Wiretaps and Your Health

2017-03-17T03:57:00Z

The two things are separate, thank God.

Today the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a statement saying they have no evidence that anyone tapped the Trump Tower.

Not a surprise.

Also today, the White House dragged our pal Bret Baier into it and he'll be here shortly.

But first, the debate over your health and how the country should treat you.

Fact number one - we need a new healthcare system because working Americans are paying too much for health insurance, and the federal government is running up debt that will eventually harm all of us.

So Congress needs to move.

But no matter what the Republican majority in Congress comes up with, the opposing party will not vote for it.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: “If we had the greatest healthcare bill ever in history, and we needed eight votes from the Democrats to get us up to the 60 number that you would need, they would not vote for it. It's a very selfish thing. They are doing a very, very bad disservice to the country.”

Now, it is certainly true that Obamacare passed in the first place without one Republican vote.

So to be fair, partisan politics dominates both sides of the aisle.

But there's one very important difference - Obamacare was an unknown when it passed in 2010.

Now we know it doesn't work because health insurance premiums are rising for too many Americans and a number of health insurance companies are simply bailing out of the system because they can't make enough profit.

So the situation must be improved for the good of all.

Here's what should happen:

The federal mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is not a good thing.

Even though the Supreme Court said it’s constitutionally okay, it really isn't. The feds have no right to tell us to buy anything.

However, there are millions of Americans who simply cannot afford health insurance.

Those folks should be able to receive government assistance, but in order to make it efficient that assistance should come from the states through Medicaid.

Also health insurance companies should compete nationwide. That would drive down the premiums for working families.

In addition, those Americans who do not buy health insurance should have to pay a bit more for coverage after they get sick.

It is simply not fair for someone to wait until they have cancer and then want the same insurance rate as a healthy person.

It's also not fair for the partisan press to say folks will lose their health insurance if those same people refuse to apply for Medicaid or whatever.

I mean come on.

As Talking Points laid out last week, there is a huge conflict between the Bernie Sanders people who want free health insurance for everybody and conservatives who say you should pay your own way.

That's at the heart of the healthcare debate, and it's never going to be resolved.

But for the good of all Americans, these pinheads in Congress should try to get the best bill possible and put their ideology on the shelf.

Working Americans do not deserve to be gouged paying for healthcare insurance.

And we are a compassionate country so we have to have safety nets for those who cannot support themselves.

The problem is, the can-nots mix with the will-nots and the system gets hammered. But that's another problem that will never be solved.

There will always be irresponsible Americans who game the system.

Talking Points believes the Republican version of Obamacare will make it through the House with some compromises and arrive in the Senate at the end of March.

There are a few Democratic senators who can be won over but only a few.

So a new healthcare law is shaky to say the least.

And that's the memo.

Weaponizing Tax Returns

2017-03-16T03:47:00Z

The Trump tax return reveal courtesy of NBC News is a fascinating look at how the American media has now become a circus of ideology and cynicism.

Let's look at the facts.

Someone gave far-left reporter David Cay Johnston two pages of Donald Trump's IRS return from 2005. Old Dave says it simply arrived in his mailbox.

What a lucky break.

Johnston then gave the document to MSNBC in return for putting him on the air to spout all kinds of gibberish unchallenged.

The return shows that Mr. Trump rendered to Caesar what was legally required. He paid $38 million dollars in federal income tax 12 years ago.

But Johnston was indignant anyway.

By the way, Mr. Johnston is a quasi-socialist and also said that President Trump himself might have leaked the return to him, of course offering absolutely no evidence to support his contention.

I don't know about you, but I have a little trouble picturing the president asking his staff, “Hey, does anyone know where David Cay Johnston lives?”

Before the actual return was shown to the audience, the cable news host Rachel Maddow delivered a twenty-minute monologue describing various anti-Trump conspiracy theories that she espouses on a nightly basis.

It was kind of hard to follow as she hopped from Azerbaijan to Cyprus to Palm Beach to the U. S. Attorney’s office in New York City.

There was a Russian oligarch, bad people from Deutschebank and shadowy international transactions.

I kept waiting for Donald Trump to appear on the grassy knoll, but that did not happen.

Perhaps because they had to go to a commercial.

Then the real fun started for two full hours as a variety of anti-Trump merry-makers put forth more speculation than a panel at a UFO convention, portraying the president as Doctor Evil bent on destroying Western civilization as he pets his cat.

Lost in the "let's get Trump" marathon was the actual leak, which is a felony if it came from the government.

My guess is the Illuminati did it, but I'll check with David Cay Johnston.

No doubt MSNBC will derive ratings from this madness, which it has ever since they turned into the Syfy channel over there.

But it is not all about ratings.

Those folks want to destroy Donald Trump anyway they can.

That's the mission.

And they are just getting started.

And that's the memo.

Irrational Thinking, Hysterical Debates

2017-03-15T05:09:00Z

For those of you who have watched us over the years, you have seen a change on The Factor.

Used to be I'd slug it out with almost anyone, no matter how crazy they sounded.

We've had people on this program who said the U.S. government engineered the attacks on 9/11.

We had Congressman Barney Frank on and after we played a tape where he said that the federal mortgage system was "fundamentally sound" and "not in danger of going under," he actually denied saying that even though he listened to the tape of his own words.

That resulted in a loud confrontation.

I could give you scores of other examples.

But we don't do that much anymore because the irrationality in some precincts, the dishonesty of some zealots, the absolute hysteria that surrounds some news stories is simply dumb and incredibly annoying.

You get nowhere when you present facts. They are rejected, so why bother?

Above all, I don't want to waste your time.

Last night on her program “The First One Hundred Days,” Martha MacCallum tried to reason with a man who believes that the feds and authorities in Missouri allowed Michael Brown to be executed by a police officer.

Even though Martha presented the facts, that didn't matter.

MARTHA MACCALLUM: “You are suggesting that 40 FBI agents were all...”

JASON POLLOCK, DIRECTOR OF “STRANGER FRUIT” DOCUMENTARY: “I'm suggesting the Department of Justice failed.”

MACCALLUM: “... to make sure that this person [Officer Darren Wilson] was not indicted. Listen to me.”

POLLOCK: “They failed.”

MACCALLUM: “Listen to me …”

POLLOCK: “They failed!”

((EDIT))

MACCALLUM: “There were three different forensic investigations that were done that showed that he [Michael Brown] was shot in the front.”

POLLOCK: “I don't care! They failed him! They all failed.”

MACCALLUM: “Everyone in the country was told this narrative that he was shot in the back.”

POLLOCK: “They all -- do you know how many black men -- do you how many black men are in jail right now?”

MACCALLUM: “That he had his hands up and said ‘don't shoot.’ It was all discounted by 40 ...”

POLLOCK: “Do you how many black men are in jail right for nothing? For nothing? Because the Department of Justice failed them.”

MACCALLUM: “You know ...”

POLLOCK: “You know how many black men are in jail right now?”

So that guy sincerely believes that blacks are brutalized and thrown into prison on a mass scale because of their color.

That's what the man believes.

So why debate him? Facts don't matter to him and you can't even get a sentence out.

And the worst part is, you're a racist if you don't see it the way he does.

It's the same thing with less volume with some politicians.

No matter how many facts you present to Nancy Pelosi, she is going to tell you Obamacare is great.

No matter how many policy failures there were in the Iraq War, some conservatives will shrug it off and deny any mistakes were made.

Talking Points believes the propaganda element is worse on the left at this point in history, but the honest American will cede that zealots on both sides spin it. They're not looking for the truth.

We are.

So you will not see Jason Pollock on The Factor after he failed to treat Martha with respect.

You will not see Nancy Pelosi here either, even though I would interview her if given the chance.

But she would never do that because she knows her own city is falling apart due to liberal policies, and she has to know that Obamacare has hurt far more Americans than it's helped. But she doesn't care.

In her mind, she's noble because she believes in far left tenets.

For irrational people, compromise is impossible and that's why America is having a tough time.

There are way too many irrational people.

And that's the memo.

How the Obamacare Brawl Affects You

2017-03-14T01:13:00Z

It is a classic left-right brawl.

President Obama and the Democrats wanted to provide healthcare to Americans who could not or would not pay for it.

The Republican Party and President Trump do not want to do that.

So the battle lines are drawn.

Here are the facts:

Eighty-one-percent of all Americans who signed up for the Obamacare health plan will receive government assistance this year.

Some will have their entire healthcare premium paid for by the government.

That cost American taxpayers more than $100 billion last year alone.

That's the essence of Obamacare, that all Americans are forced to buy health insurance so that the have-nots can be subsidized and covered.

It is estimated that since Obamacare passed, 13 million people have health insurance who did not have it before.

Enter President Trump, who says that Obamacare costs way too much and is a disaster in every way.

So the Republicans will put forth a new national healthcare plan.

This one will not order you to buy health insurance.

If you don't buy it, your option will be to go to the emergency room and get treated.

If you can't pay, the taxpayer picks it up just like the old days.

If you cannot afford health insurance premiums, the Republicans want the states to handle it through Medicaid.

President Trump and his acolytes essentially want out of the healthcare business and will send federal money to the individual states so they can decide who gets what.

But the Medicaid tax dollars will be capped.

Liberals hate that, they want the feds to dictate health insurance costs and who gets it free or subsidized.

So that's essentially where we are.

The key question for you, the American citizen, is, will your healthcare premiums go up or down once Obamacare is history?

Today the Congressional Budget Office said that under the Republican plan, the feds will spend about $337 billion dollars less subsidizing healthcare over the next ten years.

But about 21 million more Americans will not have health insurance by the year 2020.

Again, that would mostly be their choice.

The CBO does not know what might happen if the insurance companies are allowed to compete nationwide, which they cannot do now.

Will that drive premiums down?

That's the hope on the Trump side.

But not on the left:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): "This really has nothing to do with healthcare. What this has everything to do with is a massive shift of wealth from working people and middle-income people to the very richest people in this country. It is a $275 billion tax break for the top two percent."

Senator Sanders is angry because the Republican healthcare plan knocks out an Obamacare payroll tax and a tax on investment income.

Sanders says that gives money to the rich people and that's always the argument from the left -- any tax breaks, especially on investment income sales of stocks, interest, that kind of thing, helps the wealthy.

But the Trump administration has promised to lower taxes and their healthcare plan does that.

It is simply impossible for you, the American consumer, to know how this will all turn out.

As they say on the west coast, it's complicated.

Summing up, liberals want a big entitlement culture. Some uber-conservatives want few, if any entitlements. More moderate Republicans want the states to handle healthcare entitlements with limits.

There you have it.

And that's the memo.

What We the People are Entitled to Receive

2017-03-09T23:55:00Z

That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

There is great confusion all over the land about rights and what the government owes us.

Essentially there are three major expectations that the government should meet under the Constitutional banner of “pursuit of happiness”.

Number one: Security. We are entitled to have an effective defense against people who would kill us.

But today our security is wobbling because of hackers and leakers and the federal government doesn’t seem to be able to stop the espionage. While many Americans don't pay attention, this issue that we cannot guard our defense secrets or even protect the President when he talks to a foreign leader, is something that America has never seen before. Simply put, the high-tech world is creating threats to our security that are almost out of control. This is perhaps the most important issue the federal government faces right now.

Close to that is healthcare. Americans are entitled to an affordable medical system that can alleviate their suffering. All of us are going to get sick and we will need help. But right now that help is confusing to say the least. It is pointless for the Factor to debate Obamacare and what might replace it until a specific new proposal is put forth. When details are decided and the bill is ready to be considered, we will be all over it.

The guiding principles of healthcare should be that it is financially reasonable, that you have access to the doctors you need, and that you are not bogged down in a chaotic system of red tape and delays. So Congress has a lot of work to do to put a fair healthcare system in place.

Finally all American adults should have fair access to the free marketplace. By that I mean that you can't be denied a job because of your color, race, or anything else. Also, the government needs to put sensible guidelines in place that protect workers from exploitation. With many unions now politically corrupted, the feds and states have much more responsibility to working Americans.

And that's what we are owed.

The Bernie Sanders philosophy that everyone should be guaranteed a job and at a set wage and shepherded through life is not what America is all about.

In some cases, some Americans are not treated fairly in the marketplace.

The best example of this is when we see children from families who don't really care about them. These kids are often thrown into awful schools and wash out early without much of an education at all. They have little chance to succeed economically. For far too long America has looked away from this reality.

Every American child deserves a quality education and right now the system is not providing that for millions of kids. That must change.

And that's the memo.

Treason Is in the Air

2017-03-09T01:41:00Z

We now know that somebody either leaked or hacked into CIA files that explained how U.S. intelligence is tracking enemies of the nation.

WikiLeaks says it has released almost 9,000 documents from the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence.

A Wall Street Journal editorial put it this way:

"The losses from this exposure are incalculable. These tools represent millions of dollars investment and man-hours. Many will now be rendered moot as terrorists or foreign agents abandon traceable habits."

So again, ISIS, al Qaeda, other killers now know how the USA is tracking them.

Therefore the leaks are a treasonous act.

According to the Reuters news agency, the CIA breach happened during the Obama administration.

The Factor has learned that some of the computer systems used by the agency are more than 40 years old, easily hacked into, easy targets of theft.

We have also been told that bids are out to high-tech companies to upgrade the computer facilities of our intelligence agencies.

That will cost tens of billions but is absolutely necessary in this dangerous world.

But no matter how sophisticated the hardware gets, we still have people committing treason inside the government.

We reported on that last night.

Since taking office, President Trump has been bedeviled by leaks, classified information being fed to the anti-Trump press among them.

So now we have a growing catastrophe. Obviously the CIA and other intelligence agencies cannot protect their secrets.

And so far only a few individuals have been charged with violating national security.

In 2013, then-Private Bradley Manning was convicted of six Espionage Act violations plus theft and computer fraud for giving stuff to WikiLeaks.

Just before he left office, President Obama commuted Manning's 35 year sentence, allowing him to leave prison on May 17th after seven years.

Many objected to the leniency shown Manning.

Talking Points believes that leakers of classified documents are actively committing treason.

And it is apparent that the federal government does not have a handle on how to apprehend these traitors, much less stop the espionage.

America is the most sophisticated country in the world, but we cannot protect the private conversations of our leader, our intel secrets, and our counter-terrorism measures.

Obviously, a dangerous situation.

President Trump should order the FBI to aggressively investigate all leaks and hacks, assigning that a top priority.

Today Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee requested a meeting with FBI Director Comey on the hacking and leaks.

Mr. Comey should do that as quickly as possible and it should be televised.

Americans need to know if this situation is completely out of control or what.

And that's the memo.

Investigating National Security Leaks

2017-03-08T02:38:00Z

Coming out of all the chaos surrounding the Russian hacking and President Trump's allegation that President Obama somehow tapped the Trump Tower during the campaign should be indictments against those who leak national security information.

So out of chaos may come justice. Let's hope so.

As we reported last night, there are only two stone-cold facts that we can report in this entire debacle.

First, that General Michael Flynn was captured on a wiretap talking to the Russian ambassador, perhaps from Flynn's office in the Trump Tower.

That tap happened but we do not know who ordered it and how it went down.

Obviously the American people are entitled to know.

The second fact is two-fold: Someone leaked the conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the press.

That's a felony so we need to know who the leaker is.

Associated with that, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, working for President Obama, ordering the rules about shared intelligence information changed just days before the president left office.

Why did Ms. Lynch do that? Did the president order the change? Again, we need to know.

That's very important because by the National Security Agency sharing raw information with the FBI, CIA and other intel agencies you open up the potential for leaks.

And that's exactly what happened. As soon as President Trump took office, his phone calls to the Mexican president to the Australian prime minister and to other high level officials were leaked to the press.

So in effect the Obama administration may have created chaos for the Trump administration by allowing unsubstantiated intelligence information to be spread across a number of agencies.

This is big if that were done intentionally to harm the incoming president Mr. Trump, that's subversion.

So you can see that Congress must get to the bottom of the situation.

Right now there are investigations in the House and the Senate to find out if Russian officials colluded with the Trump campaign.

As we reported last night, so far there is no evidence of that.

We also don't know anything solid about wiretaps and leaks concerning Donald Trump.

And we need to know.

And that's the memo.

Taps, Collusion and Chaos

2017-03-07T05:18:00Z

The Trump-haters say his campaign worked with the Russians to derail Hillary Clinton's chances to be president.

That accusation has angered the president and tied up his administration with unwanted controversy.

Showing his annoyance, the president Tweeted over the weekend that he believes Barack Obama ordered phone taps at the Trump Tower.

So now all hell is breaking lose.

Let's look at the facts.

Unfortunately, there are only two facts in this whole swamp of accusations.

Only two.

First, the calls between General Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. They were tapped by somebody.

And a portion of the conversations was given to the Washington Post.

So who tapped the call?

We don't know.

The second fact is that President Obama allowed Attorney General Loretta Lynch to change the way U.S. intelligence agencies share unconfirmed data.

That happened in January, just a few days before Mr. Obama left office.

It used to be the intelligence agencies would guard their secrets.

Now, the NSA can give them to other agencies - even if the intelligence is not confirmed.

The result? Leaks sprouted all over the place, leaks that were damaging to the Trump administration.

So why did President Obama change the intel standards?

We don't know.

But Donald Trump apparently believes it was to sabotage his incoming administration.

That's it. That's the only factual information we have.

All the rest is blather, opinion, propaganda, speculation.

Now the entire tawdry mess is based on the Russian hacking, which bedeviled the Clinton campaign.

As stated, some anti-Trump people accuse the president and his acolytes of working with the Russians.

But yesterday, the former director of national intelligence under President Obama said he found no evidence of that.

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS MODERATOR: "Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?"

JAMES CLAPPER, FMR. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the director of national intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."

That report was issued on January 6th.

Also, a senator investigating the Russian deal said the same thing.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: "I know you've been briefed by FBI Director Comey and other members of the intelligence committee and investigative committee, you've seen no evidence so far of collusion?"

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): "Thus far, I have not. Now, we are still in a relatively early stages of our inquiry and it will be thorough and wide-ranging and follow the facts wherever they take us."

So any fair-minded person has to acknowledge there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, at least at this point.

Now on to the tapping. In order for that to legally happen, a judge would have to issue a FISA warrant.

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS MODERATOR: “If the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?”

JAMES CLAPPER: “Yes.”

CHUCK TODD: “You would be told this?”

JAMES CLAPPER: “I would know that.”

CHUCK TODD: “If there was a FISA court order-“

JAMES CLAPPER: “Yes.”

CHUCK TODD: “--on something like this.”

JAMES CLAPPER: “Something like this, absolutely.”

CHUCK TODD: “And at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether that exists?”

JAMES CLAPPER: “I can deny it.”

President Trump has asked for an investigation into the alleged tapping. We assume that will happen but this whole thing is terrible for the country.

America's credibility is being damaged all over the world, and the federal government's ability to even operate is being impeded.

So, for the good of the country, perhaps we should tamp down the madness.

Let Congress do its job and investigate, okay?

And that’s the memo.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself in the Russian Investigation

2017-03-03T04:25:00Z

Okay, here's the deal - the Democratic Party, and much of the national press, want to produce evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in defeating Hillary Clinton.

There is no question about that.

Because of the Russia hacking - a serious issue - there were hearings held in Congress.

And by extension, when Senator Jeff Sessions testified at his confirmation hearing for attorney general, the Russian issue came up:

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN): “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

THEN-SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, (R-AL): “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I’m unable to comment on it.”

Last night, the Washington Post published a story that said then-Senator Sessions did meet with the Russian Ambassador twice last year.

But if you were listening closely, the question was about the Trump campaign, not the former senator's duties on the Armed Services Committee.

Today in a press conference, the attorney general reiterated that. He was answering the Russian question in the context of the Trump campaign.

He said he did nothing wrong, told the truth but is recusing himself from the case:

JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: “My staff recommended recusal. They said that since I was involved with the campaign I should not be involved in any campaign investigation. I have studied the rules and considered their comments and evaluation. I believe those recommendations are right and just. Therefore, I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign.”

Talking Points believes that Mr. Sessions did the right thing.

The FBI is currently investigating whether Russians influenced the presidential vote and who was involved.

The investigation has to be above reproach, and that's why the attorney general is out of it.

One footnote - not one single Democrat in Congress called for then Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recuse herself from the Hillary Clinton investigation after she met with Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport.

There was no call for recusal by the Democrats.

So, once again, hypocrisy is on full display.

Now here's what should happen going forward.

The FBI should continue its investigation, and Director Comey should testify in front of Congress.

If, during that testimony, there is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, then a special prosecutor should be appointed.

That's what should happen. A methodical investigation by the FBI and a determination by Congress whether a special independent probe is necessary.

I think that is a fair, honest and efficient game plan in this political climate.

Finally, even though the press does want to destroy President Trump, the American people should want to know if there were any secret dealings with the Russians during the campaign.

That's an important story that should be defined.

And that's the memo.

President Trump's Speech to Congress

2017-03-02T03:09:00Z

It was well received -- 78% of those watching the speech felt it was positive, just 21% negative, according to a CNN snap poll.

Also, when asked if the president made you feel more optimistic or pessimistic, 69% said optimistic.

Twenty-eight-percent pessimistic.

Now snap polls like that are based mostly on emotion and the sample was 33% Republican, 28% Democrat, 39% independent.

But there is no question that fair-minded people came away from the speech impressed, at least most of them.

But of course that didn't stop the anti-Trump brigade.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: “It will be a notable thing that the president spent a big portion of what was, in effect, a State of the Union trying to, you know, tell the country what vicious murdering criminals immigrants are.”

((EDIT))

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): “He relished saying those words, just to stick it to Islam, to make sure that they knew that they were all a danger to the United States.”

((EDIT))

KATHY GRIFFIN, COMEDIAN: “What an idiot. We have to watch this idiot for an hour and nine minutes. He just says one hateful thing after another. He’s so embarrassing.”

What's embarrassing are haters, let me correct that … It's not embarrassing, it's sad.

Summing up, President Trump helped himself greatly last night.

His base applauded his presentation throughout, independents broke his way, and he gained credibility among some of those who might have been doubtful.

And that's the memo.

What is the Real State of the Union?

2017-03-01T05:56:00Z

The economy is getting stronger but wages are still rather stagnant.

A tax cut for working Americans might change that, as consumers would likely increase spending, leading business to expand.

The more labor needed, the higher wages will go.

If President Trump announces a big expansion of infrastructure construction, that will stimulate the job market as well.

So across the board tax cuts and spending on roads, et cetera, is what is needed right now.

Of course, that will drive up the national debt, which we'll get to shortly.

On the national security front, the president is committed to building up the military -- which is necessary, but must be done methodically.

Mr. Trump is essentially correct when he says the USA has squandered about six trillion dollars in the Middle East.

I mean, what have we achieved there?

ISIS and other jihadists are still a major threat. Millions of refugees need care. Iran remains a huge enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan are chaotic.

Two presidents tried and failed to bring stability to the Middle East using American blood and treasure.

The goal was noble. The plans flawed to say the least.

The truth is that President Bush's confrontation and President Obama's retreat did not make things better in that brutal region.

Can Donald Trump do better?

No one knows.

Also on the security front there will be a partial wall on the southern border, plus increased enforcement of immigration law.

The wall is largely a symbol. The enforcement, a message the Trump administration will not accept open borders and violators of federal law.

As with the Middle East, immigration policy must be enforced methodically, with explanations given to the American people about why things are happening.

The open border/sanctuary city folks have the media with them so to counter that, the president has to explain how his policy benefits the country.

He should also be humane in this area. Desperate hard working people do not deserve harsh punishment.

Thus, Congress needs to get off its collective butt and pass updated immigration laws.

The issue is so intense that at tonight's speech, some Democrats are bringing undocumented folks as guests while President Trump has invited families whose loved ones were killed by illegal alien criminals.

After immigration, the economy and security/terrorism, the problems are smaller. Except for the debt.

It will continue to rise well past 20-trillion until health care and social security spending are redefined.

Donald Trump knows he has to run up even more debt to accomplish his agenda and cutting some programs is not gonna balance things out.

The president hopes that prosperity will eventually bring in more tax money but that's far down the road.

Eventually, in order to bring the massive debt down, the government will have to restructure Social Security and Medicare payments for younger Americans. But Mr. Trump wants no part of that.

Finally, if Donald Trump is successful in juicing wages, the culture war stuff will begin to go his way.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will be crushed if capitalism makes a comeback. And so will all the nanny state nonsense.

Americans are tired of political correctness and left wing totalitarianism. Most of us have had it with extremism on both sides.

The truth is that this country remains a citadel of opportunity and common sense views held by regular folks.

But that profile has been smothered by big government zealots, ideological fanatics and a media that promotes the P.C. culture.

If President Trump's vision brings increased prosperity and security, he will trounce his enemies. If economic opportunity rises, all the class warfare B.S. will be harder to sell.

But in order for that to happen, America needs to be unleashed.

And that's the memo.

War Between President Trump and the Press

2017-02-28T04:52:00Z

Critical mass has now been reached, as the Trump administration is denying access to certain news organizations it believes are out to get the president.

Also, in an act of defiance the president announced he will not show up to this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner in April.

He does, however, want everybody to have a good time.

If this political controversy were a legal case, and if I were the judge, I'd have to recuse myself.

That's because for the past 20 years I have watched the liberal media in America scorch the Fox News Channel and the people who work here - including me.

The attacks are personal, relentless and often dishonest.

Just last week, after Alan Colmes passed, a far-left smear website vilified him as a weak liberal, a calculated pawn for this network.

Does it get any worse than that?

No, it does not.

So there is no question that if the national media does not like your politics, it will try to hurt you. Even if you are deceased.

Anyone denying that is a deceiver.

Of course, the Trump administration is well aware of this.

It knows that the media is desperately trying to link the Trump campaign to Russia and will use anonymous sources to drive that narrative in the hope that the election will be perceived as invalid.

By the way, we do not use anonymous sources here. I have been told bad stuff about both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But without attribution, it will not be reported.

The president also understands that certain news organizations despise him to the point that employees actually fear for their jobs if they say positive things about him.

Many left-wing editors and executives believe Mr. Trump's positions on illegal immigration, Muslim terrorism, global warming, abortion, crime and just about every other issue define the president as a dangerous man who must be destroyed.

Therefore, anyone supporting him cannot be tolerated.

There will be no détente. The gulf is too wide. It will be one nasty media confrontation after another until the president leaves office.

Now it is difficult to see how this awful situation benefits anyone.

The country is not helped by the acrimony.

Talking Points believes the president has a right to defend himself but should do so using facts.

If a report is wrong - fake news - have Sean Spicer vividly refute it in detail.

If access is denied to certain press organizations, again specifically spell out why. If you don't, you come off as petulant.

Facts will always win the debate - as we prove on this program every night.

As for the Correspondents' Dinner, the president is smart for not going.

Like him or not, he's not big on hypocrisy. Yukking it up with an industry that obviously wants to hurt him would be bizarre.

So send the vice president and a nice donation to the dinner's scholarship fund that helps students.

The cold fact is that the presidential election of 2016 defined the free press in America.

It is actively left wing, not objective at all.

But now things have become so much worse than just ideology.

Now, it's war.

And that's the memo.

The Most Important Problem in the USA

2017-02-24T05:00:00Z

According to a brand new CBS News poll, it is immigration. More Americans want that situation dealt with than any other current problem.

Right now 39% of Americans approve of the way President Trump is handling the immigration issue.

Fifty-five-percent disapprove.

Now that number should come as no surprise because the media in general has hammered the president for his aggressive order to remove criminal aliens.

As you saw last night on The Factor, the left does not want to consider the word criminal, instead always falling back on peaceful migrants.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, FMR L.A. MAYOR (D): “It's immoral to divide mothers from their children in the way that they are beginning to do now. ((EDIT)) They have expanded the definition of a criminal offense to include crossing the border multiple times to come back to your family, to include using fake documents so when you are stopped that you are not deported, to include using driving without a driver's license when you couldn't get a driver's license.”

So let's think about what the former mayor of Los Angeles just said. He's okay with illegal aliens defying deportation multiple times to "come back to your family."

What does that mean?

Does the mayor want open borders?

Sounds like it.

How about his rationalization of using fake documents?

He's fine with it because everyone should be allowed in here with no restraints.

Same thing with licenses. Why should states issue the privilege to drive to people who are not supposed to be in the country in the first place?

That make any sense to you?

So when you examine the illegal immigration situation without emotional politics, it all comes back to the law.

That being said, Talking Points believes the law should be changed.

There should be a generous guest worker program put into place so American businesses have access to labor that they need.

Also, the illegal aliens already here should have a hearing, all of them, to determine whether their presence is benefitting the country.

That would take a while and the aliens would have to register, but let's be fair on this issue.

For decades the federal government has turned the other way while migrants came in here, there's no question about that.

So while the individual illegal alien did violate immigration law, our federal government permitted it.

It's like the teacher who lets students run around the classroom for weeks then suddenly says they are all suspended.

Now the apathy on immigration is going to change because President Trump wants the rule of law to be re-established in America.

South of the border it is depressing to watch the Mexican government object to a lawful display by America.

What nerve. It's entirely Mexico's fault that millions of their citizens feel they have to come here to earn a decent living.

Canada doesn't have that problem, but Mexico does and always has because their system is chaotic.

Same thing with the violent drug cartels. The government of Mexico cannot control them, so we're not entitled to put up a barrier to try to prevent poison from coming into this country?

That's just insulting.

Mexico should take full responsibility for its inability to provide a decent economy for its own people and for failing to defeat drug peddling monsters.

But they never will.

And that's the memo.

The Intense Debate Over Illegal Immigration Continues

2017-02-23T05:07:00Z

A new survey from Harvard, conducted by the Harris Poll and printed in The Hill newspaper, is kind of shocking.

One caveat - this is an internet poll which we usually do not reference for hard news reporting.

So please maintain some skepticism.

The poll asked, "Do you believe cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?"

An astounding 80% say yes.

Twenty percent say no.

But on the question of a border wall, it's different.

"Do you support or oppose a wall?" Fifty-three percent oppose, 47% support.

Next question - "Do you support the executive order that suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days?"

Fifty-three percent support, 47%, oppose.

Then finally, "The United States is supposed to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees this year. Should that number be higher, lower or the same?

Fifty-one percent, lower.

Thirty-four percent, the same.

Fifteen percent, higher.

If the polling is accurate. the Harvard survey is a stunning rebuke to the liberal Sanctuary City movement.

Talking Points does believe most Americans oppose sanctuary cities. But 80 percent?

I simply don't know.

Now, the reason most Americans do not want local jurisdictions creating federal anarchy can be spotlighted in Denver County, Colorado.

Federal authorities say that 27-year-old Norlan Estrada-Reyes, who had a number of run-ins with the law, was released by the Denver County Sheriff's Office despite ICE asking that he be held.

Reyes is a Honduran citizen in this country illegally.

So what happened after his release?

Reyes allegedly struck 28-year-old Karina Pulec with his car, dragging her 50 feet and killing her.

Then he fled.

He is now charged with multiple felonies.

Also in Denver County, another horror.

Nineteen-year-old Ever Valles, an illegal alien from Mexico and a known gang member, was again released by the Denver County Sheriff's Office despite ICE asking that he be held.

So what happened?

On February 7th, Valles and another man shot 32-year-old Tim Cruz to death at a light rail station.

Both men have been charged with murder.

REPORTER VOICEOVER: “We wanted to ask Denver sheriff Patrick Firman why his department failed to notify ICE when Valles was booked for murder, when it had already notified the feds about the stolen car arrest. But Furman declined an interview. In a statement, the sheriff's office says, 'Denver has never, and will never, condone dangerous or violent individuals being on our streets, immigrants or not. However, detaining anyone without a criminal warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment.”

The Sheriff, Patrick Firman, is full of it. There is no violation of law holding someone for the federal government.

It's done all the time.

The sheriff upholds the sanctuary city mantra, as does the mayor of the city of Denver, Michael Hancock.

In my opinion, both men have blood on their hands.

And that's the memo.

President Trump and the Culture War

2017-02-22T04:26:00Z

It is becoming clear that the Trump administration will succeed or fail based upon its economic programs.

If tax cuts, lower regulations, and better trade deals create more well-paying jobs, the president will defeat his enemies.

But it seems that Mr. Trump wants to win the culture war as well.

And if he really does, he must change his style.

On Saturday in Melbourne, Florida, the president pointed to Sweden as a country that was having trouble with migrants.

That is true, as we will show you shortly, but his words were not precise. And his enemies hammered him.

So another lesson learned.

Facts will win the culture war, not opinion.

And the facts are stark. America is divided on many issues, including national security. Should we have strict immigration enforcement or the lazy attitude of the past where if you overstayed your visa, authorities wouldn't look for you, and if you illegally crossed the border, you were released?

Last night on The Factor, we told you about a man who had been deported eight times - a convicted drug dealer - and we also reported that not one member of the Democratic party had criticized that man.

Instead, they focused on his son who was taken into custody by ICE along with his father.

There is outrage because the son was shielded by President Obama's DACA program, even though the 23-year-old may be affiliated with a gang.

The left wants him released immediately with no consequences.

That kind of situation is very troubling. Same thing happened with Kate Steinle when she was allegedly murdered by an illegal alien criminal who had been deported five times.

Now, most Americans do not want a country with no standards of behavior.

But against a determined open border crew, you must zero in on the facts very precisely.

The reason we have such a cultural divide in America is that for eight years, we had a president, Barack Obama, who saw the country as a flawed nation.

He wanted to institute vast change from income redistribution, to retreating overseas, to painting a picture of America as a troubled nation.

That's what President Obama did and he wasn't quiet about it.

OBAMA: “All of us have more work to do. (EDIT) So we have work to do (EDIT) We’ve got more work to do (EDIT) Now here’s the thing, we got a lot more work to do (EDIT) Yes, we’ve still got more work to do.”

But now we have a president who believes that America is inherently a great nation and wants to restore that mantle.

But Mr. Trump often veers from hard facts.

And that allows the people who despise him to attack - sometimes effectively.

Look, there's no question that criminal illegal aliens are creating havoc all across this country and there's no question the Democratic Party is fine with it.

So that's the culture war battle that should be fought.

Fox News Correspondent Steve Harrigan spotlighted a situation in Florida.

Steve Harrigan package:

STEVE HARRIGAN: “Mug shots tell the stories in brief: first degree murder, aggravated assault, heroin. The bigger story involves a revolving door of undocumented aliens. Mexican national Hector Eduardo Ramirez Gutierrez has been arrested for dealing meth, and deported from the US seven times.”

GRADY JUDD, SHERIFF, POLK COUNTY FLORIDA: “It’s not a problem, it’s a epidemic.”

HARRIGAN: “For those on the front line the frustration is evident.”

JUDD: “Our primary mission, our primary goal has got to be to get the illegal alien committing felonies out of this country and keep them out.”

Summing up, the Trump Administration will rise or fall on economics.

But it does have an opportunity to win the culture war.

But in order to do that, discipline and facts must dominate the discourse.

Facts, not opinion, will trump propaganda.

Pardon the pun.

And that's the memo.

The Truth about the Crackdown on Illegal Immigration

2017-02-21T04:50:00Z

Twenty-three-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina, arrested by ICE earlier this month in a Seattle suburb, says he is being brutalized by the Trump administration.

His story is fascinating.

Mr. Ramirez-Medina came here at age seven, the son of an illegal alien criminal named Antonio Ramirez-Polendo.

Ramirez-Polendo spent a year in a Washington state prison for felony drug trafficking.

In the ICE raid, he was picked up, along with his son, but get this: Ramirez-Polendo has been deported eight times yet still was residing outside of Seattle.

Would you want someone in your neighborhood deported eight times?

We have not heard one liberal voice comment on that.

Instead they are focusing on Daniel.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): "In another assault on our values, in the past week we have witnessed ICE raids across our nation targeting parents, students, and a DACA-protected DREAMer."

The protection Congresswoman Pelosi is talking about was mandated by President Obama. It is called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.

Essentially, the order says that children brought to America by illegal alien parents, and who have no criminal history, should be allowed to stay and work.

Daniel Ramierz-Medina was part of that program.

The problem is, the Department of Homeland Security says he has admitted to having gang affiliations. His attorney denies that.

But he has a tattoo on his forearm, which some people believe signifies gang membership.

The Factor is trying to confirm that but so far we cannot.

It might just be a tattoo with no implications.

That gang allegation was enough for ICE to hold Daniel, who has a three-year-old son in this country.

But the left has now taken the case and made it a centerpiece of attacks on President Trump's crackdown on criminal illegal aliens.

But the Anti-Trump crew totally ignores the father, indicating they do not care very much if a foreign national is deported eight times.

You'll remember the alleged murderer of Kate Steinle was deported five times and San Francisco County still protected him.

Right up to the time the man was arrested and accused of shooting Kate to death.

So step back for a moment. One part of the country, led by President Trump, wants to deport criminal illegal aliens and secure the borders so they can't get back in here.

Another part of the country does not want strict border enforcement and does not seem to care that criminals can defy deportation as many as eight times.

So what side are you on?

One final thing. Every time, and I mean every time the subject of criminal illegal aliens arises, the Democratic Party will not engage.

Instead, they fall back on the ruse that the illegal immigration crackdown is aimed at chambermaids and house painters.

You hear that over and over and over.

In the case of Daniel Ramirez Medina, there is certainly enough in play to investigate him further.

In the case of his father, who was deported eight times, if Kate's Law were passed he'd be serving decades in a federal penitentiary.

And that's the memo.

The Swamp Fights Back

2017-02-17T04:34:00Z

Donald Trump was elected president largely because he promised to reform Washington.

Millions of Americans are fed up with intellectually dishonest politicians who are not looking out for them.

Mr. Trump portrayed the nation's capital as a swamp.

TRUMP: “I want the entire corrupt Washington establishment to hear the words we all are about to say. When we win tomorrow, we are going to DRAIN THE SWAMP.”

For every action, there is a reaction.

And the law of unintended consequences is now hitting President Trump.

That's because the swamp is inhabited by many different creatures, some of whom want to destroy the president.

Right now the national media despises Mr. Trump - as we have pointed out and backed up with facts.

Also, some folks working for the federal government want to damage the president.

That's why you are seeing leaks from intelligence agencies and other federal bureaucracies.

Now all presidents have to deal with leaks. But in this political climate, the press gleefully, gleefully, accepts information from anonymous sources.

As we pointed out last night, the public and press does not know what General Michael Flynn said to the Russian Ambassador.

Also, whether there is any truth to allegations that people working on the Trump campaign had meaningful contact with the Russian government.

Yet the press has run wild with these stories, and the Trump haters are relishing a witch hunt:

AL SHARPTON: “If there was dialogue and negotiations with the Russians, with the Russians, which is clearly against the law and clearly an act that cannot be pardoned. If the president knew while it was going on and did not stop it or in some way authorized it, that can be impeachable.”

That's just bull. It is not against the law for anyone to talk with any Russian.

General Flynn had no power other than being a private citizen when the call with the Russian ambassador took place.

In order for him to have committed a crime, he would have had to formally attempted to undermine the Obama administration's Russian policy.

So Sharpton is full of it.

There is a report today that says General Flynn may have lied to the FBI. If that is true, that is a crime, so we'll see.

As Talking Points reported last night, there are two goals here.

The first, to link the Trump campaign to the Russian hackers who disrupted the Clinton campaign.

And the second, to somehow try to prove that President-elect Trump was undermining President Obama on Russian policy.

That is what the media goal is.

Also, as we again said last night, if there is truth to those allegations, it should be taken very seriously when facts are presented.

When President Trump first mentioned draining the swamp in Washington, I do not believe he understood how extensive the problem was.

After eight years of President Obama, there are many people working in the federal government who like the former president and who despise Mr. Trump.

Eliminating all of them and stopping leaks will be pretty much impossible.

Also, trying to get fairness out of an anti-Trump press will be impossible as well.

So the Trump administration has its hands full.

And that's the memo.

Mass Hysteria Over General Michael Flynn

2017-02-16T04:22:00Z

As we reported last night, the national security advisor [Gen. Michael Flynn] has resigned because the Trump administration says it lost confidence in him.

The story is a bit complicated but it boils down to this:

Flynn had phone contact with the Russian ambassador in late December while Barack Obama was still president.

According to leaks from the intelligence agencies, Flynn discussed Mr. Obama's sanctions against Russia.

Then General Flynn denied that to Vice President Mike Pence.

The FBI also interviewed General Flynn and, if he lied to them, that would be a crime.

However, that's a big if.

It is not a crime for Mr. Flynn to informally talk with the Russian Ambassador before Donald Trump took office, but it is highly inappropriate if policy was discussed.

So at this point, Flynn is out and it looks like retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward will take his place.

Admiral Harward is 60-years-old, has extensive military experience and served in Afghanistan.

Looks like a solid choice, but you never know.

By the way, the FBI is still investigating the whole Russian situation and that's all we know at this point.

But lack of facts doesn't stop the anti-Trump press from whipping up hysteria.

There are two things in play.

First, the Trump-haters are fervently hoping that they can link the Trump campaign to the Russian hackers who disrupted the Clinton campaign.

That's the ultimate goal for the haters.

If they cannot achieve that, they would like to have General Flynn tell the world that Donald Trump ordered him to call the Russian ambassador.

So that's the media game plan.

Now yesterday the bombast on our cable competition was actually humorous.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman compared the Russian hacking to war.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: “We have never taken seriously from the very beginning, Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.”

Here's how crazy that statement is. Say President Trump declared war on Russia as we did after Pearl Harbor, would Thomas Friedman support that?

Of course not.

So this is just madness.

However, the anti-Trump media loves this kinda stuff.

Let me give you another very simple example, and it has to do with speculation.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: “Do you think Flynn acted alone when he made that phone call to the Russian ambassador in Washington?”

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): “I don't think that anything in Washington happens alone.”

Now that man, Congressman Seth Moulton, is a Trump hater.

Also, he has no blanking idea whether General Flynn acted alone. He couldn't possibly know that.

Wolf Blitzer, who is generally responsible, asked a speculative question based on nothing.

There could not have been any credible answer that shed light on the Flynn situation.

So why bother with this nutty speculation?

The answer is there are millions of Trump haters who will sit there hour after hour after hour and watch this kind of bilge.

And that's why it's done.

Summing up, there is no credible evidence at this point that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians in the hacking of the Clinton campaign.

There is no credible evidence that General Flynn was directed to do anything.

Yet the anti-Trump media is spending hours talking trash.

One footnote, hard news reporters should be looking into all the Russian intrusions including the Flynn situation.

And if those reporters uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it should be presented.

But speculation by the media is garbage.

And that's the memo.

The First Casualty of the Trump Administration

2017-02-15T02:44:00Z

National security chief Michael Flynn has resigned.

The general got into trouble over a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador before Donald Trump took office.

The issue centered on sanctions President Obama slapped on Russia, apparently General Flynn discussed that with the Russian.

Michael Flynn should have known that his call was being taped both by American and Russian intelligence agencies, that is standard.

But then things get foggy. I don't know what General Flynn said. Nobody knows at this point except government officials because there is a transcript of the conversation, as yet unreleased.

But according to Fox News Correspondent John Roberts, General Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the content of the call.

That's the big reason he was fired.

Vice President Pence wields a lot of power in the White House and subordinates simply cannot mislead him.

So the Trump administration is now searching for a new national security advisor.

The story really ends here unless General Flynn was ordered to say something to the Russians that was inappropriate.

Again, speculating on that is foolish. If evidence surfaces, we will certainly report it.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect on the Flynn saga is the PR component.

Yesterday Kellyanne Conway said the general was safe.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: “General Flynn does enjoy the full confidence of the president. And this is a big week for General Flynn. He's the point of contact for many of these foreign visits.”

Did Ms. Conway mislead or did she not know the general was in trouble? Either way, not a good situation.

Talking Points well understands the complexities of running this country.

But it is becoming clear that President Trump needs better coordination among his staff.

There should be someone in charge of quality control and accurate messaging.

That someone should be Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who is experienced and skilled.

No way Kellyanne Conway should be out saying all is fine with General Flynn when all was not fine.

That kind of confusion does not do anyone in this country any good, especially because President Trump has legions of people trying to hurt him.

Summing up, Flynn is out. A new security person will be appointed and the Trump White House needs to become better organized.

And that's the memo.

A Stunning Display of Dishonesty from the National Press and Radical-Left Politicians

2017-02-14T04:56:00Z

Last week, about 680 undocumented aliens were arrested by ICE officials. Many of them have already been deported.

The coordinated raids targeted aliens who had committed crimes in the USA, mostly felonies.

Seventy-five percent of those taken into custody had convictions, including homicide and child rape.

One man, arrested in Chicago, is an Iraqi citizen with a conviction for sexual abuse of a victim unable to consent.

Many of the arrested non-felons were associated with the criminals.

But those facts have largely gone unreported by the American press -- and by the radical left, which is actively misleading you.

STATE SEN KEVIN DE LEON (D-CA): “What took place yesterday with raids in personal homes is part of the cog of the Trump deportation machine.”

((EDIT))

RAUL REYES, ATTORNEY: “How inhumane this is! To be breaking down people's doors and separating parents from their children.”

((EDIT))

REP. RUBEN GALLEGO (D- AZ): “This is Donald Trump really executing his campaign plan. He's trying to be a tough guy so he's going to go after the maids, the moms, the people that are working in the shops instead of going after the hardcore criminals.”

Maids, moms and shopkeepers, according to that dishonest politician.

Now the false news reporting actually reached the level of hysteria.

Newspaper headlines screamed things like "The Trump Deportation Regime has Begun," "Immigrant Community on High Alert, Fearing Trump's 'Deportation Force,'" "On Devon Avenue in Chicago, News of Immigration Raids Intensifies Fears."

We could find no headlines in major newspapers - none - that bannered the fact the raids were targeted at illegal aliens who had committed serious crimes.

That's not press bias, that's blatant dishonesty.

And here's another example.

In the year 2013, the Obama administration removed more than 434,000 illegal aliens - the highest number in history, which goes back to 1892.

Did you see any anti-Obama demonstrations?

Did you see any screaming headlines in the national media?

No, you did not. Even after President Obama said this:

July 1, 2015. Nashville, TN

OBAMA: “What we should be doing is setting up a smart, legal immigration system that doesn’t separate families, but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are gang-bangers or criminals - that we’re deporting them as quickly as possible.”

At this point, that's almost exactly what President Trump is doing.

But the illegal immigration issue has been set up by the media to demonize Mr. Trump as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor.

That's what's really going on here.

It is flat out disgraceful.

If the federal government cannot remove aliens who commit serious crimes, then we do not have an effective federal government.

Yet the far left and the press, knowing full well that the ICE raids were directed at dangerous people, chose not to report that - instead smeared President Trump.

We have now reached a low point in American journalism.

As for the far left, they are people who do not want any immigration enforcement.

They want open borders. They want alien criminals protected. They want anarchy.

Why? Because they do not like America as it stands right now.

It is important for all honest citizens to know you are not getting accurate information, and that there is a radical element in this country that wants to destroy it.

If this continues, there will be a breaking point.

And that's the memo.

The Stoppage of President Trump's Immigration Order

2017-02-10T04:17:00Z

So let's cut through all the mumbo-jumbo and political hackery.

Here's what is really happening.

The Trump administration believes that terrorists in nations with no central control can get to the USA in a way that is dangerous.

Hypothetically, an ISIS killer could board a plane in Tripoli, Libya with a fake passport then fly to Paris change planes and fly on to New York City.

Nobody in Libya will vet that man, so he would arrive here with a decent chance of entry.

Therefore the president wants to impose stronger security oversight on nations like Libya and six others that are essentially in chaos.

Federal law seems to favor the president:

Section 212 states:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens ..."

The law seems clear.

So Mr. Trump suspended immigration in seven countries for 90 days; for Syria he also stopped refugees from entering until further notice.

Enter the states of Minnesota and Washington, where the attorney's general challenged the travel ban, saying it harmed individuals and businesses and was unconstitutional because it targeted Muslims.

A federal judge in Washington then blocked President Trump's order, and just two hours ago a federal appeals court upheld the block unanimously.

Why?

The three appeals court judges basically ruled that there is no urgency to stop travel from the seven countries, and that there are strong arguments on both sides that should be reviewed.

The judges also wrote that no irreparable injury would be caused by a stay of the president's order, and that the courts should eventually decide whether the order is constitutional.

The judges basically saying more legal vetting is needed of the terrorist vetting plan.

Talking Points believes there is more than a little political motivation in his case.

No question Minnesota and Washington State took the action because of liberal politics. They believe the president is anti-Muslim.

As for the appeals court, it's impossible to say with certainty what motivated their decision.

If you take them at their word they want more legal hearings on the matter.

President Trump says the decision to block is purely political and that his Justice Department will take it to the Supreme Court.

I say good. Let's see if federal law which again is clear in this case means anything anymore.

In the meantime, anyone coming here from the seven nations cited can expect a substantial wait at the airport.

And that's the memo.

Adventures on the Far Left

2017-02-09T05:03:00Z

As you may know, the Democratic Party is split between moderates and far-left folks.

But it is the ideological zealots that get most of the attention.

This week, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary.

But before that vote took place, liberal bomb thrower Al Franken attacked Ms. DeVos in the Senate.

AL FRANKEN: "It was one of the most embarrassing scenes I've been witness to during my time in the United States Senate. In fact, I believe it may have been one of the most embarrassing performances by a nominee in the history of the United States Senate."

Now the reason Franken does not like Betsy DeVos is that she is a champion of school choice.

She has devoted much of her life to trying to bring quality education to poor children, often trapped in bad inner-city schools.

You would think that an uber-liberal like Franken would approve of trying to help poor kids. But he does not.

Why?

Because by offering school vouchers and encouraging charter schools, which are run apart from the public school system, Ms. DeVos is challenging the powerful teachers' unions.

And those unions and their associates have donated more than $150,000 to Al Franken campaigns.

How enlightening.

So Franken, like many politicians, panders to those who give him money.

It is beyond question that poor American children, often minorities, are not getting the same quality of education that middle class and wealthy children are getting.

So why not try something new? Why not try school choice? Why not give poor parents subsidies to choose better schools for their kids?

How long are we going to put up with discrimination against the poor?

How long, Al?

In another far-left adventure, Senator Elizabeth Warren, as close to a socialist as you can be, attacked Senator Jeff Sessions in the hearings over whether Mr. Sessions should become the new attorney general.

What Warren did was try to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King 31 years ago that criticized Mr. Sessions.

It all had to do with the senator prosecuting a voter fraud case in Alabama while he was a U.S. Attorney there.

The situation involved three civil rights activists who Sessions believed were committing voter fraud.

The three were ultimately acquitted of the charges, and Mrs. King was furious with the case.

Again, that was 31 years ago. But last night, seeking to paint Jeff Sessions as a racist, Warren brought it up in the Senate.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): "The Senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama as warned by the chair. Senator Warren, quote said Senator 'Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.'

((EDIT))

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): "I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate, I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks."

SEN. STEVE DAINES, (R-MONTANA): "Is there objection?"

MITCH MCCONELL: "Object."

ELIZABETH WARREN: "I appeal the ruling."

SEN. STEVE DAINES, (R-MONTANA): "The objection is heard. The Senator will take her seat."

Later, Senator Warren read the letter on Facebook.

Now you can decide whether the far left is really looking out for the country by objecting to school choice and trying to smear a man like Senator Sessions.

That call is entirely up to you.

But what is crystal clear is the huge divide between the attitudes of the far left and moderates in the Democratic Party, not to mention Republicans, where there is no common ground at all.

Talking Points believes that honest debate is necessary. But part of that equation is letting you know what's really going on behind the scenes.

Thus, tonight's memo.

President Trump Breaking Big News in His Interview with Me

2017-02-08T05:26:00Z

The headline-grabber was Mr. Trump talking about Putin, the president saying that the USA is guilty of some deadly judgments and we should not be so ready to condemn the Russian leader.

That was flashy but not really substantial.

As we explained last night, President Trump wants to make a deal with Putin that would encourage Russia to help us crush ISIS and neutralize Iran.

So he is not going to alienate Putin at this time.

You may remember that President Roosevelt dealt with Stalin, a killer who makes Putin look like "Little Bo Peep."

FDR did that to defeat Hitler.

Also, as the president Tweeted, Barack Obama made deals with Iran even though the Mullahs are big-time killers.

So history is full of compromises, something that was not pointed out by the media in its rush to bash Trump over Putin.

To me, the most important thing the president said in that interview was that he will hold Iran accountable for aggressive actions.

That's a huge difference from President Obama, who did not want to confront Iran.

Also Mr. Trump will apparently punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds.

Like the refugee deal, that will lead to court challenges and things will get nasty.

The far-left will mobilize its protest apparatus; the president will be labeled a bigot.

However, I do not believe Donald Trump is going to back down from the sanctuary cities.

The other breaking news had to do with tax cuts. The president saying they will happen this year.

Also Obamacare, which looks like it will take a little longer to dismantle than Mr. Trump originally thought.

All in all, a lot of news came out of a 36-minute interview.

As Talking Points stated last night, the president was direct and confident in his positions.

That of course drives the Trump-haters absolutely mad.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump and Terrorism

2017-02-03T04:52:00Z

Protests continue over the president's travel restrictions leveled at countries that have major problems controlling terrorists.

The left's overreaction to this, branding it as anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant, is predictable.

However the Trump administration should have explained exactly why it has chosen seven countries on which to impose travel restrictions to the USA.

It all comes down to terrorism.

The president believes that Barack Obama was far too soft on the Islamic Jihad.

He also believes that America needs tougher standards when it comes to admitting refugees and more domestic security overall.

None of that is unreasonable. But in order to blunt anti-Trump propaganda, detailed explanations have to be given to the folks.

Mr. Trump began that process today:

TRUMP: “We have to be tough. It’s time we’re going to be a little tough, folks. We’re taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. That’s not going to happen anymore. We have seen unimaginable violence carried out in the name of religion. Acts of wanton slaughter against religious minorities, horrors on a scale that defy description. Terrorism is a fundamental threat to religious freedom. It must be stopped and it will be stopped.”

Of course the president is talking about Islamic Terrorism and therein lies a problem with the left.

As we all know, they do not want Islamic terrorism to be identified.

After all these years, I still don't understand that.

Reality is reality.

One of the nations that cannot send people to the USA for at least 90 days is Iran.

This week that nation again provoked the world by firing off a ballistic missile.

GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: “The recent ballistic missile launch is also in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. ((EDIT)) In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region.”

And so the Trump administration has put Iran on notice and it looks like new economic sanctions on Iran will be forthcoming.

The left, again, will not like that.

An editorial in the L.A. Times today criticized President Trump for saber-rattling with Iran.

But it is clear that the soft approach President Obama took to confronting terrorism is now being completely reversed by the Trump administration.

Apparently, President Trump had a rough conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull.

According to the Washington Post, Mr. Trump thinks that President Obama's deal to accept 1,250 refugees from an Australian detention center is bad for the USA.

However, the White House now says the deal will go through.

But it is clear President Trump is a confrontational guy.

The refugee problem all over the world will not settle down until America and NATO begin establishing world order.

Ironically, the left does not want that either.

In fact, the liberal community worldwide opposes any aggressive action against terrorism or any intrusion into chaotic nations where the refugee problem is exploding.

So, on the left, there is no solution. They simply accept the jihad and the chaotic world that stems from it.

Believe me, Donald Trump is not going to brook that.

Is the Democratic Party in Serious Trouble?

2017-02-02T05:21:00Z

First of all, we need two vibrant parties in this country. Robust debate and different points of view strengthen the nation.

But a big change is taking place. The term 'loyal opposition' in politics is now devolving into just 'opposition.' The 'loyal' has left the building.

In President Trump's case, no matter what he does, there are some Democrats who will oppose him and that is harmful to America.

Also, there is deception.

Last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held a town hall.

The subject of illegal alien violence was raised.

LAURA WILKERSON: "In 2010, one of the illegals slaughtered my son. He tortured him, he beat him, he tied him up like an animal. And he set him on fire. And I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day. (choking up) Because there are no laws enforcing the border."

((EDIT))

NANCY PELOSI: "There is nothing, I'm sure that can compare to the grief that you have. And so I pray for you. ((EDIT)) But I do want to say to you, that in our sanctuary cities, our people are not disobeying the law."

That is flat out untrue. A deceit that is outrageous.

Congresswoman Pelosi well knows that in San Francisco, her hometown, an illegal alien deported five times is charged with murdering 32-year-old Kate Steinle.

That man, 54-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, will be put on trial soon but the verdict on San Francisco is guilty of failing to hold Sanchez even though the feds asked for him to be detained.

Somebody tell Nancy Pelosi.

All over the country, Americans are outraged that a beautiful woman like Kate Steinle was gunned down by a foreign felon who had illegally crossed into this country six times.

Yet Mrs. Pelosi has the gall to say that in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, our people are not disobeying the law.

Again, that is a bold lie.

If one of the most high profile leaders of the Democratic Party is that arrogant, that dishonest, what does this say about the party in general?

And Mrs. Pelosi did not stop there, continuing to criticize our economic system.

NANCY PELOSI: "We're capitalist. That's just the way it is. However, we do think that capitalism is not necessarily meeting the needs with the income inequality that we have in our country."

So Americans who are not ideological hear this kind of stuff - that sanctuary cities are acceptable and capitalism is not quote "meeting the needs of our people" - and they turn away.

But the Democratic leadership does not seem to understand that.

In fact Senator Tim Kaine, who ran with Hillary Clinton and was not a factor in the vote, pretty much disappearing during the campaign, is proud of his party's rebellious stance.

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): "What we've got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box, and now there's the momentum to be able to do this. And we're not afraid of the popular outcry, we're energized by it and that's going to help us do our job and do it better."

Senator Kaine says he's not afraid of the popular outcry. Well he should be.

Talking Points wants a strong Democratic Party as well as a vibrant Republican Party. That's the way our nation functions best.

But right now, there is political civil war that is actually harming the USA.

And until politicians stop the deceit and embrace policies that help all Americans, the war will continue.

And that's the memo.

Extreme Vetting

2017-01-31T03:01:00Z

President Trump's executive order stopping the flow of refugees into the USA until a new system of evaluation can be put into place is causing major dissent.

So let's examine the situation in a fair way.

Last year about 85,000 refugees were admitted to this country, nearly half of them Muslim. That does not count tens of thousands of people who claimed refugee status crossing the southern border.

About 19,000 Syrian refugees were admitted during the past two years.

The Trump administration believes it is too easy for refugees from terror areas to come here and has stopped citizens from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia from being processed for at least 90 days.

It cites the refugee chaos in Europe and the violence that has caused as evidence more vetting is needed.

Indeed liberal countries like Sweden have cracked down hard on migrants entering, citing a myriad of problems.

It is worth stating for the record that the massive flow of mostly Muslim refugees would not be happening had President Obama and the West not retreated from the Middle East and North Africa, allowing ISIS and the Syrian dictator Assad to murder at will.

Also, and I bet you didn't know this, President Obama stopped most refugees from Iraq from coming to America in 2011.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: “Barack Obama put a pause for six months on refugees coming from Iraq back in 2011. I don't remember protesters and I don't remember lawsuits. So I think the bigger question if this is a temporary pause, which is designed for us to improve and look at our vetting processes, and indeed temporary, I don't necessarily think that's an outrageous idea.”

Here in America we have had our share of migrant terror.

All 19 Muslim killers on 9-11 walked on in here.

So did the Boston Marathon murderers, Muslims from Central Asia.

One of the San Bernardino killers was from Pakistan.

The Orlando mass murderer came from an immigrant family, as did the terrorist who attacked a mall in Minnesota.

So it is certainly responsible and logical for a new president to institute updated protections for this country by ordering specific temporary immigration actions.

Is it not?

However, it is also responsible for a federal judge to order that foreigners with the proper credentials already issued not be punished.

There should be room for case-by-case decision making as Republican Senators McCain and Graham have requested.

If Muslims from terror areas have helped the USA, they should be given waivers.

In addition, it would be wise for the Trump administration to develop a strong outreach to the Muslim world. We need their support to defeat the jihad.

In the past, Talking Points has proposed that NATO troops setup safe zones for innocent people threatened in places like Syria.

Right now Turkey is overseeing many refugee camps.

Led by America NATO should assist Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and other countries willing to protect people at risk.

Summing up, President Trump is being responsible, setting up new refugee standards as long as they are fully explained and expedited in a timely manner.

We don't want to tarnish the message the Statue of Liberty sends.

Also, the administration must be willing to grant exceptions and above all should help refugees survive in the terror zones abroad.

Protecting Americans is priority number one.

But the nobility of our nation demands we help suffering helpless people if we can.

And that's the memo.

The Pro-Illegal Immigration Movement

2017-01-27T05:40:00Z

With President Trump signing executive orders to build the wall on the southern border and threatening sanctuary cities with a funding penalty, all hell is breaking loose.

Many on the left simply do not want immigration law enforced.

The cold truth is they want anarchy, they believe that everyone has a right to come to America for whatever reason.

Some of these people advocate open borders with no restrictions on traveling to the USA.

Some of them believe that the poor must be accommodated in every way.

And some people who support illegal immigration do so for political reasons.

Logic dictates if America's immigration laws are unfair, then Congress should change them.

But right now Talking Points believes what we have is reasonable.

You apply to come to the USA, and your application is either accepted or rejected.

If you simply show up with no papers, you are violating U.S. law.

Yet Governor Jerry Brown of California, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, just to name a few, say they will not obey immigration law.

That of course is a violation of their sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States.

So there really isn't any legal argument; it's all about theory and politics.

President Trump campaigned on ending the illegal alien madness.

So let's take a look at what he wants to do:

Right now there are 654 miles of fencing along the southern border with Mexico.

That leaves 1,300 miles of border without a barrier.

Mr. Trump is going to expand the fencing and rename it a wall.

It will not be constant -- there are areas that don't need barriers, natural barriers prevent crossings.

The primary reason a wall is needed is that tons of narcotics are being smuggled from Mexico into the USA.

That is a scandal and Mexico will not stop it blaming the U.S. for drug consumption.

But it is clear that Mexico is a passive partner in the drug and people smuggling industries, therefore they should pay for at least part of the wall.

I mean here's how bad it is.

The Mexican drug lord el Chapo is here in New York City right now because the Mexican government cannot put him on trial.

He escaped twice from Mexican prisons -- the most notorious criminal in the country escaped twice.

The sad truth is Mexico is corrupt and cannot stop the drug cartels from doing their evil business, and will not stop millions of migrants from crossing its territory and entering into the USA illegally.

Again, that's Mexico's fault.

So if a barrier stops some of the drugs, why would anybody object to that?

And today President Trump suggested Mexico may have to pay a 20% tariff to fund the wall.

This is all way too much for the Mexican president.

He cancelled a meeting next week with President Trump, who addressed the issue this afternoon.

TRUMP: “The president of Mexico and myself have agreed to cancel our planned meeting schedule for next week. Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless, and I want to go a different route.”

It really doesn't matter who cancelled what. What does matter is that last year 560 pounds of heroin were confiscated on the Mexican border, five hundred sixty pounds.

And that's just a fraction of what got through.

As you may know 50,000 people died in 2015 from drug overdoses.

By the way, more than 8,000 pounds of methamphetamine was confiscated at the border.

So again, if you object to a wall designed to prevent drugs from being smuggled here, what is your rationale?

Now on to sanctuary cities.

It is clear that President Trump is not ready to deport illegal aliens who do not commit crimes in the USA.

He said that again yesterday; it is criminal aliens that are being targeted by Homeland Security.

The left-wing politicians know that, but lie about it.

BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: “New York City is half a million undocumented people. We want them to come forward and work with the police, if they see a crime, if they're victim of crime. If they believe by talking to a police officer they will get deported and be torn apart from their family, they’re not going to work with police.”

Mayor de Blasio, an uber leftist, completely avoids the criminal alien subject, always trying to deflect the sanctuary city situation on to house painters and chambermaids.

So dishonest.

In Chicago where the mayor cannot control gang violence, he remains defiant on criminal aliens:

RAHM EMANUEL (D), CHICAGO MAYOR: “We’re gonna stay a sanctuary city. ((EDIT)) There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you're from Poland or Pakistan, whether you're from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you're from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream.”

So you are welcome in Chicago even if you are criminal alien because sanctuary city policies do not flag undocumented criminals for federal authorities.

That's the crux of this matter, that irresponsible politicians like de Blasio and Emanuel put their own people at risk for political gain.

Neither man would be in office without pandering to people who have recently come to this country and who may not understand the danger of sanctuary cities.

It is political demagoguing at its worst, but it has some support.

NEW YORK CITY PROTESTOR: “You are xenophobic. You are homophobic. You are pitting against Americans against Americans. And fair-minded, smart Americans are not going to stand by passively and let you pit us against one another.”

This week there were demonstrations in places like New York City, Washington, San Francisco and Denver yesterday, protesting against President Trump's executive orders.

But again, what exactly are these people objecting to?

Trying to stop narcotics from coming in here? Trying to get a handle on illegal aliens who commit crimes? Are they objecting to that?

Part of Mr. Trump's executive action orders the Homeland Security department to make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens on a weekly basis.

Also, to list jurisdictions that fail to honor federal detainers with respect to undocumented aliens.

The Trump administration wanting the folks – you -- to know the full extent of the problem.

Finally, the Government Accountability Office -- an independent non-partisan agency that works for Congress -- says that in 2015, 22,000 high-risk air travelers were prevented from coming to the USA.

In the same year more than 8,000 known or suspected terrorists tried to get in here but were thwarted.

So if these protesters and these loony mayors think that open borders and lax immigration enforcement are good things, they deserve to be scorned.

Breaking it down, sanctuary cities and counties promote anarchy.

If the left doesn't like immigration law, petition Congress to change it.

If the mayors refuse to obey federal law, President Trump should cut off federal funds immediately.

And that's the memo.

Big Crack Down on Illegal Immigration

2017-01-26T04:51:00Z

Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Trump has ordered the immediate construction of a wall on the southern border.

And not only that:

Donald Trump at the Department of Homeland Security today:

TRUMP: "Our order also does the following: ends the policy of catch and release at the border, requires other countries to take back their criminals, they will take them back, cracks down on sanctuary cities, empowers ICE officers to target and remove those who pose a threat to public safety."

Mr. Trump signing two executive orders which send a signal that illegal immigration is going to be dealt with in a very aggressive way.

To explain further, catch-and-release is a policy re-instituted by President Obama where those sneaking across the southern border could ask for asylum and almost immediately be set free, sometimes with a bus ticket to an address in the USA.

Few of those released ever returned for their court hearings.

That policy was a scandal; now it is finished.

Secondly, the sanctuary cities have openly defied federal law for decades.

Now, federal funds may be denied to those places.

So on day three of President Trump's first week in office, he has sent shock waves through the liberal communities.

Also, Mr. Trump is calling for a federal investigation into voter fraud where he alleges that millions of illegal aliens are voting.

That's a good thing. We should know if fraud on election is real or not.

Also, the president has informed the city of Chicago that if the murder epidemic there does not stop, federal authorities will intervene.

That intrusion is likely to happen as Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel will not stop the brutal gang killings, which have taken thousands of innocent lives.

How that situation has been allowed to go on for years is another scandal and perhaps the most vivid illustration of racism Talking Points has ever scene.

So President Trump is acting quickly, and according to a Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll, Americans are taking notice.

Today that poll has 57% of likely U.S. voters, approving of Donald Trump's job performance, 43% disapproving.

It remains to be seen, however, whether a border wall will be effective, whether sanctuary cities will finally obey the law, and whether ending the catch-and-release program will slow down illegal border crossings.

But at this point strong federal action is being taken.

No question about it.

And that's the memo.

Another Busy Day at the White House

2017-01-25T04:19:00Z

President Donald Trump met with executives of the big motor companies today, vowing to cut corporate taxes and asking the moguls to build more plants in the USA.

Obviously Mr. Trump is trying to gin up the economy by urging big business to invest in America.

He is also threatening 35% import taxes on those carmakers who build in Mexico and want to sell here.

In addition, the president signed an executive action aimed at opening up the Keystone and Dakota oil pipelines.

President Trump believing that will create jobs and energy profits.

Of course that will anger the environmentalists, but Mr. Trump does not care. In fact he has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to essentially stop communicating with everyone.

No social media. No press releases.

But perhaps the most controversial thing that happened today was not anything that Donald Trump did, but a change in policy.

You may remember that President Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Executive Order.

That stopped the deportation of migrants who were brought to this country by their parents.

During the campaign, Donald Trump was up and down on the so-called DACA action, but now the policy is this:

SEAN SPICER: “On the DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] piece, the president has been clear that he’s going to prioritize the areas of dealing with the immigration system—both building the wall and making sure we address people who are in this country illegally. First and foremost the president has been very, very clear that we need to direct agencies to focus on those who are in this country illegally and have a record, a criminal record, or pose a threat to the American people.”

So applications from the so-called 'dreamers' continue to be processed by the immigration service.

And the threat of mass deportations is not likely to come about.

Finally, the president has asked FBI Director James Comey to stay on the job.

Talking Points is surprised. Mr. Comey is now allied with politics, whether that's fair or not.

I was critical of Comey for releasing documents on some Fridays before holiday weekends. That's an obvious technique to suppress information.

However, I don't know how effective Mr. Comey is in his job.

But again, he's keeping it - at least for now.

Summing up, second full day on the job, President Trump continues to be an activist.

He is angering environmentalists, still threatening companies that move overseas, but doing all of that in the name of the American worker.

Clearly the Trump administration is putting economic growth before all else.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump on the Job

2017-01-24T04:30:00Z

Busy news day. President Trump signed three executive orders.

Number one: The USA will leave the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That trade agreement is toast.

Number two: There is now a federal hiring freeze with the exception of the military.

And number three: The U.S. government will no longer pay any agency for performing abortions overseas.

An addition - there was a press briefing today at the White House. Brit Hume will analyze that coming up.

It is quite clear that President Trump is going to be an activist.

That means he's going to change a lot of things fast.

If Congress people think they're going to get a lot of gym time, they're mistaken.

Mr. Trump is also going to challenge the American press - which he loathes.

Over the weekend, there was a silly controversy over whose Inauguration crowd was bigger, Trump's or Obama's.

With all due respect, who cares?

If you're interested in that kind of thing, television ratings really tell the tale.

Donald Trump's Inauguration clocked in with the fifth highest TV viewership. Ronald Reagan was first.

But today, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that if you add in all the people watching on Internet devices, the Trump Inauguration reached more folks than any other.

Most likely true, but again, not really important to the country.

What is more compelling is the press war between the president and national media outlets.

Talking Points sees it clearly. Many in the media had a vested interest in seeing President Obama succeed.

And those same people have a vested interest in seeing Donald Trump fail.

He knows it. You know. I know it.

The only reason to compare crowds at the Inauguration was to embarrass Mr. Trump.

Everyone knows Washington, DC and its suburbs are Democrat strongholds.

Come on.

Now, there are two roads for the Trump administration to take here. You can rise above the national media and bring your message directly to the folks.

Or you can slug it out:

REINCE PRIEBUS: “I'm saying there's an obsession by the media to delegitimize this president, and we are not going to sit around and let it happen. We're going to fight back tooth and nail every day, and twice on Sunday.”

So we can expect a lot of time devoted to this battle.

Back in the year 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush faced the same media bias:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “You know something, Bill? I've learned a pretty good lesson. That's never to complain about the press coverage. ((EDIT)) I don't like some of the coverage. But I'll tell you I -- the worst moments for me in politics was when I saw people say ugly things about my dad. I was a loyal son. He's the guy that gave me unconditional love. And I was ready to -- I was ready to launch after anybody that would say anything ugly about him.”

O'REILLY: “And you did on a couple of occasions.”

BUSH: “I did. I know, and -- but it's all different being the person that's going to become your president.”

Mr. Bush did not engage the press. He mostly ignored the slings and arrows.

Talking Points believes that hurt the president a bit, as his image suffered in the relentless criticism he endured.

The Iraq War should have been defined better by the Bush administration - especially after weapons of mass destruction were not found.

But George W. Bush made a decision not to take on the press. And they hammered him.

There is no way Donald Trump will allow that to happen. Whether the ongoing confrontation is good for the country remains to be seen.

What Americans have to understand is that there is an organized effort to get Donald Trump out of office.

This is a largely unreported story.

The Woman's March over the weekend is a good example.

That was not a spontaneous event. It was organized by far-left groups, which receive millions of dollars from the liberal activist George Soros.

In fact, Soros has ties to 50 of the groups that attended the Woman's March this weekend, 50.

And according to the Media Research Center, Soros has pumped $90 million into those groups.

Some of the top march organizers were members of the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Again, this was not some spontaneous uprising. This was a well-thought out political spectacle designed to denigrate the new president.

And if you watched the exposition, you heard some really crazy stuff:

ASHLEY JUDD, ACTRESS: “Blacks are still in shackles and graves just for being black. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the prison system in front of people who seek melanin as animal skin. I am not as nasty as a swastika painted on a pride flag and I didn't know devils could be resurrected, but I feel Hitler in these streets. A mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis renamed the cabinet.”

That kind of extremism is simply nuts.

Yet the Trump administration responded:

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: “You have celebrities from the podium using profanity-laced insults. You have a very prominent singer who's worth hundreds of millions of dollars not going over to a woman's shelter here in D.C. to write a check, but instead saying that she thought of, quote, "Burning down the White House."

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You're talking about Madonna?”

CONWAY: “Well, this is destructive.”

Ms. Conway is correct -- it is destructive, not good for the country.

Talking Points has no problem with people demonstrating against a politician or a political party. That's time-honored.

But insane charges of fascism, racism and the like demean our system.

It is clear the far left will not give President Trump a chance and will do everything it can to get him out of office before his term is over.

That is going to lead to trouble, and the crazy left has a powerful ally: the media.

You will not hear them reporting about how George Soros is manipulating protests behind the scenes.

Finally, a presidential Inauguration is supposed to be a time of celebration, not non-stop acrimony.

Donald Trump is a confrontational guy. He will not sit around and take a lot of garbage. But by responding to obvious provocations, the Trump Administration veers away from the people's business.

We've said it before, the Trump Administration will rise or fall on its policy accomplishments.

If the economy ignites and security gets tight, Mr. Trump will be a successful president.

If that does not happen, the dissent will become overwhelming.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump Is Now President

2017-01-21T03:30:00Z

First, Mr. Trump's Inaugural address

It was a militant speech.

About 16 minutes long, very political.

That is somewhat of a departure, as many new presidents are diplomatic at the Inauguration.

Not Donald Trump.

He did compliment President Obama for being cooperative in the transition, calling him "magnificent."

But then he hammered Mr. Obama's policies.

TRUMP: “Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge; and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”

So with Mr. and Mrs. Obama sitting just a few feet away, Mr. Trump basically said that the last eight years have been a catastrophe for America.

And it wasn't an anti-Democratic screed. Mr. Trump criticized both parties.

TRUMP: “We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own. (APPLAUSE) And spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich, while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.”

The reference to trillions of dollars spent overseas of course encompasses the Iraq and Afghan wars, which were begun by President Bush the younger.

Also, George W. Bush was seated just a few feet away from President Trump.

So it is clear that Donald Trump has no sensitivity to the politics of the past, no matter who was in office.

His message was directed to his supporters, to the folks who are fed up with a political process they believe is not helping them.

It was fascinating to watch as President Trump pretty much dismantled the entire Washington establishment in 16 minutes.

It was more like a campaign speech than a presidential address marking the beginning of a new administration.

Now whether Mr. Trump's speech was good or bad is pretty much up to you.

It doesn't really matter what pundits say. He was speaking directly to the American people, telling them there is a new power structure in place.

One that is going to break down the entrenched political process.

Whether Donald Trump can accomplish that is impossible to predict.

He does have to work through Congress, and he does have to convince powerful people all over the world to cooperate with him.

No president can institute vast change alone.

By the end of his speech, which was clearly meant to send a message, Donald Trump laid it all on the line.

TRUMP: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first. (APPLAUSE)”

So there you have it. Again, it is up to you, the American citizen, to evaluate the effectiveness of Mr. Trump's speech.

Some other quick impressions of this historical day.

The first time the camera found Hillary Clinton, she looked absolutely miserable and you can understand it. She thought she had the presidency locked up.

When the camera first found Donald Trump, he looked a little tense and again, that is understandable. This was the biggest public moment of his life.

As usual, President Obama looked relaxed. He is an accomplished political actor, rarely showing what he's thinking and acting appropriately in public.

After the big show, Mr. and Mrs. Obama flew off to Palm Springs, California for a vacation, and Talking Points does not expect to hear much from the former president … at least for a while.

One of the most touching moments was when First Lady Melania Trump straightened her son's tie.

I can tell you from personal knowledge that Mrs. Trump is an excellent mother who will not move to Washington immediately so the ten-year-old Barron can continue his schooling in New York City.

Finally, the 92-year-old former President Jimmy Carter.

He did not have to come to this Inauguration. Everyone would understand if he stayed back in Georgia.

But Mr. Carter is a patriot and stood in the damp cold to watch America's peaceful transition of power.

Whether you like Jimmy Carter or not, you should respect this man because he is a good man.

And that's the memo.

What Donald Trump Should Say in His Inaugural Address Tomorrow

2017-01-20T05:07:00Z

We're getting word that the address will run about 30 minutes, but less is more. It may be raining, and 20 minutes would probably be the best presentation.

George Washington's second Inaugural address was less than five minutes, as the old general didn't really have a lot to say at that point.

But Mr. Trump does have a lot to say because he is in a unique position. There are powerful forces in America committed to destroying him.

And the national media is a big part of that quest.

So Talking Points believes that tomorrow President Trump should not only say what his vision for America is, but why he feels his policies will help the folks.

The only way to overcome the hatred arrayed against him is to communicate directly to the people.

A new Fox News poll asked, does Donald Trump listen to people like you?

Forty percent say Trump does a good job in that regard.

Fifty percent a bad job.

So the more the new president can direct his remarks to the folks, the stronger his position will be.

And on that note, I have changed my opinion. I used to think all this Tweeting hurt Donald Trump.

But now it's a necessity because he can expect to be attacked every day.

He must have a rapid defense mechanism in his own words, and Twitter provides that.

Now, as for Trump's message, it has to be economic based -- how to improve the financial situation for hard working Americans.

All of his domestic policies have to revolve around that theme, and he has to connect them in his address tomorrow.

For example, if you're going to crack down on border security, say why, explain how that will help Americans make a better living.

If you're going to knock out a bunch of environmental regulations, specifically say how that will improve the country.

It will not be enough for Donald Trump just to proclaim, he will have to explain.

In the past there have been some very interesting statements made by new presidents. Here you go:

REAGAN: “It's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back.”

((EDIT))

GEORGE W. BUSH: “The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom.”

((EDIT))

JFK: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

The sad fact is that no matter what Donald Trump says, tomorrow in his address it will not be accepted by those who despise him.

But again, he can overcome that opposition if he talks directly to the people and if he emerges as their champion through policy success.

And that's the memo

President Trump and Executive Orders

2017-01-19T03:05:00Z

As you may know, Donald Trump has promised to sign a number of executive actions almost immediately after taking office.

Some of which may overturn things President Obama did.

But what things?

Well we have been investigating and here is the best available evidence.

Mr. Trump is likely to issue notification that the USA will withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Trading Partnership.

That of course will rock some Asian countries and put the entire region on notice.

Mr. Trump is also promising to cancel restrictions on the coal industry and other fossil fuel concerns.

Now for the big ones.

Donald Trump is going to do something on the southern border; we're not exactly sure what.

James Rosen has been looking at that. He'll be with us in a moment.

Also, Mr. Trump will get specific about Obamacare and possibly suspend some government mandates by executive order.

Now you may remember back in 2009 Barack Obama issued an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Eight years later it remains open.

So executive orders are not in stone -- they can be revoked, modified or expanded.

Presidents are free to change their minds.

One thing a new president cannot do is overturn pardons issued by a previous president.

There is some word from inside the Trump Organization that the new president will institute a "shock and awe strategy" and sign a number of far-reaching executive actions to signal that he will shake up Washington.

If that happens next week, all hell will break loose, no question about it.

So summing up, Americans can expect a wild first week with Donald Trump as president.

He will issue a number of executive orders. Democrats will not be happy with them, and the media condemnation will be intense.

Take it to the bank.

And that's the memo.

A Super Bowl Interview with Donald Trump

2017-01-18T06:23:00Z

Fox News, Fox Sports and the Trump Transition Unit announced today that on Super Bowl Sunday, 4 pm Eastern Time, I, your humble correspondent, will interview the president.

You may remember, I did this back in 2014 with Barack Obama, and it was controversial because I pushed the president on a number of issues, including the terror attack at Benghazi.

Feb. 2, 2014

O’REILLY: “Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out.”
OBAMA: “Bill, think about ...”
O'REILLY: “That's what they believe.”
OBAMA: “-- and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.”
O'REILLY: “No, I'm not telling them that.”
(LAUGHTER)
O'REILLY: “I'm asking you whether you were told ...”
OBAMA: “But -- and what I'm saying is ...”
O'REILLY: “-- it was a terror attack and you ...”
OBAMA: “-- and what I'm saying is that is inaccurate.”
O'REILLY: “All right.”
OBAMA: “We -- we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.”

This time around, I expect to ask President Trump a number of policy questions but also about how he is processing his amazing achievement.

A man with no political experience winning the most powerful office in the world.

So it should be a very interesting conversation, and I really appreciate FNC's confidence in me.

With just three days to go before Donald Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States, there is still controversy over his very being.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll says Mr. Trump's favorable rating will begin at 40% - unfavorable 54%.

That is the lowest favorable number for an incoming president in modern times.

Trump Tweeted, quote "the same people who did the phony election polls, and were so wrong, are now doing approval rating polls. They are rigged just like before."

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter.

When you strip it all down, there are only two things that will define Donald Trump.

First, improving the economy by cutting taxes and creating job opportunities.

Second, marginalizing threats to our safety - whether it's ISIS, immigration, anarchy or an out of control murder rate in Chicago.

Americans want to feel secure and want to believe they have a fair shot in the marketplace.

Donald Trump's entire first term rides on economic improvement and fulfilling campaign promises to stop out-of-control situations.

If he does that, no polling will matter. No protests will matter. No pundits will matter.

It's all about the economy and security.

Summing up, President-elect Trump has a tremendous opportunity to build a legacy based on achievement.

The Trump haters, the crazed ideologues and the anti-American zealots will all fall by the wayside if Donald Trump can succeed in building prosperity.

Simple as that.

And that's the memo.

Factor Viewers Come Through Again

2017-01-17T04:35:00Z

As you may know, some vicious hateful people are trying to sabotage the presidential Inauguration set for this coming Friday.

There is no excuse for that. A peaceful transition of power should be respected by all loyal Americans.

In fact, the term loyal opposition is a badge of honor because we need differing opinions to have a vibrant society.

But when you take the word loyal out and it's simply opposition, that is a subversion of our republic.

Enter the Talladega College Marching Band, 230 strong.

The Tornados are a fabulous part of a very important Alabama college.

Talladega was founded by ex-slaves. It is an excellent African-American school that creates opportunities for students who do not have many resources.

The Talladega Tornados were invited to perform at the Inauguration.

Ninety-nine-percent of the band have never been to Washington, D.C.

The kids were thrilled.

But then came threats directed at the college president, Dr. Billy Hawkins.

He spoke to The Factor on Thursday:

From appearance on the Factor last Thursday, January 12

HAWKINS: “They've said that I I've shamed the college by making this decision, and I've had folks that say that I'm a disgrace to my African-American race. It's been pretty nasty.”

Immediately after that interview, donated money from Factor viewers poured into gofundme.com to help the Talladega band.

As it stands right now, the college has received close to a half-million dollars for their band and scholarships.

That is simply amazing.

From appearance on America's News HQ yesterday with Arthel Neville

HAWKINS: “We owe Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor a great thank you for the appearance on his show. ((EDIT)) We're just so happy that they'll have the opportunity as American citizens to have the opportunity to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to be a part of this civic ceremony and I'm just excited for the students. The closer we get to Friday, the more excited I become.”

Again, Factor viewers have donated so much money to help Talladega that not only will the band get to go to the inauguration and have its entire infrastructure upgraded, but scholarships will be available to poor students.

My foundation is donating $25,000.

The bigger picture is this -- much of that money was given by Trump supporters, the deplorables who have been demonized as racist by some on the hateful far left.

This story is vivid proof that generalizing about any group of people is foolish and dishonest.

Dr. Hawkins knew what he was doing when he came on The Factor.

He could have gone on any program, but he chose us because he knows this audience. You guys are watching because you want fairness and justice.

On this Martin Luther King federal holiday, the Talladega College Marching Band is getting ready to perform at the Inauguration.

The students will never forget that honor.

The country should be grateful to have these kids in D.C.

And The Factor audience has made it all possible.

And that's the memo.

What Really Happened in the Cheap Attacks on Donald Trump?

2017-01-13T04:51:00Z

I use the word "cheap" because if the media reports gossip, innuendo and defamation without presenting evidence, that is cheap.

Is it not?

It is imperative that a free press be fair. And giving any kind of exposure to allegations that smear a person is wrong.

It doesn't matter if those allegations are in a report or anywhere else.

If there is no back up - no facts to indicate the allegations may have some credibility - they should not be published.

I hope we all understand that.

Now, on to what happened to Donald Trump.

In September of 2015 someone hired a Washington political research firm -- Fusion GPS -- to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump.

Taking the money, the company began its sordid quest.

A few months later, some Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton also began to pay Fusion for dirt.

In June 2016 Fusion hired a retired British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to get that dirt.

Apparently Steele talked to some Russian operatives and began issuing a series of memos based on the gossip that he heard.

In August of 2016, ABC's Brian Ross reported yesterday, those salacious memos written by Steele had found their way to the FBI.

Then on Halloween, appropriately enough, a far-left magazine ran a story about the anti-Trump operation.

The national media did not pick it up to its credit.

One week ago, January 5th, President Obama was briefed on Russia's efforts to influence the U.S. Election and the anti-Trump garbage was included in that briefing.

Vice President Biden said today that the president questioned why the gossip was even included in the briefing. He was not pleased.

That's to Mr. Obama's credit.

The next day, Donald Trump received the same intelligence from four senior U.S. intel chiefs.

That's when all hell broke lose.

Also receiving the information? Eight Congress people - Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schemer, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

A short time later, CNN received a leak that the salacious anti-Trump stuff was presented to Obama and Trump.

Then BuzzFeed printed the salacious stuff.

Now, a bunch of the allegations have already been discredited and none confirmed.

Yet some argue that the public should be allowed to see all the garbage even though it certainly hurts the Trump Administration and the president-elect.

So you, as an honest American, must decide.

Do you want salacious trash in the public square distributed by the media?

There are no rules anymore. Allegations become convictions. Gossip and innuendo become fact.

Standards on the Internet and for much of the establishment media are nonexistent.

Donald Trump has denied all accusations and is angry, as we saw yesterday.

But in the long run, it is America that should be angry because this kind of stuff is harming the fabric of our society, our political structure and our ability to evaluate information in a fair way.

Facts should be reported. Baseless allegations should not unless credible evidence is presented.

Period.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump's Press Conference

2017-01-12T00:44:00Z

About 250 reporters faced the president-elect in New York City today, and many major points were made.

So let's run them down.

The issue of fake news, fabricated reports about not only Donald Trump, but public figures in general, was front and center.

The issue began yesterday when BuzzFeed, an internet site, released a so-called report that attacked Donald Trump in a personal way and also implied that his campaign had secret dealings with Russia.

There was no evidence put forth in those assertions.

Most news organizations, including Fox, stayed away from the report.

Earlier CNN did pick it up, the general thread of the story, and that angered Mr. Trump.

He was also agitated that U.S. intelligence agencies in the past have leaked stuff:

TRUMP: “I think it’s a disgrace. And I say that, and I say that, and that’s something that Nazi Germany would have done, and did do. I think it’s a disgrace that information that was false and fake and never happened got released to the public. As far as BuzzFeed, which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it I think they’re going to suffer the consequences. They already are. And as far as CNN going out of their way to build it up.”

A few minutes later a CNN reporter tried to ask Mr. Trump a question.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN REPORTER: “Mr. President-elect since you are attacking our news organization can you give us a chance?”

TRUMP: “Not you. Not you.”

ACOSTA: “You are attacking our news organization.”

TRUMP: “Your organization is terrible.”

ACOSTA: “Sir can you –“

TRUMP: “Quiet. She’s asking a question. Don’t be rude.”

ACOSTA: “Can you give us a question? You’re attacking us!”

TRUMP: “Don’t be rude. No I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news.”

Now CNN has issued a statement saying quote:

"CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than BuzzFeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos."

The statement continues but you get the idea. The press and Donald Trump will be an ongoing soap opera no doubt.

As for policy, the national media - still very interested in the Russian hacking deal.

So Mr. Trump addressed it:

TRUMP: “The Democratic National Committee was totally open to be hacked. They did a very poor job. They could have had hacking defense, which we had. And I must give Reince Preibus credit because when Reince saw what was happening in the world and with this country, he went out and went to various firms and ordered a very strong hacking defense.”

Also ABC News asked Mr. Trump about Putin:

TRUMP: “If Putin likes Donald Trump, I consider that an asset, not a liability. Because we have a horrible relationship with Russia. ((EDIT)) Now, I don’t know that I’m going to get along with Vladimir Putin. I hope I do. But there’s a good chance I won’t. And if I don’t, do you honestly believe that Hillary would be tougher on Putin than me? Does anyone in this room really believe that?”

Then it was on to Obamacare which as we reported last night is toast.

TRUMP: “We’re going to do repeal and replace. Very complicated stuff. And we’re going to get a health bill passed. We’re going to get healthcare taken care of in this country. You have deductibles that are so high.”

What the Republicans propose in place of Obamacare will of course be a major story.

Much of the press conference dealt with Donald Trump's business dealings. He's putting a lot of stuff in trusts and handing operations of his company over to his two sons.

Lou Dobbs will have some thoughts on that coming up.

But then it got back to the Trump controversies. Front and center -- the wall on the southern border.

TRUMP: “Mexico, in some form and there are many different forms, will reimburse us for the cost of the wall. That will happen. Whether it’s a tax or whether it’s a payment—probably less likely that it’s a payment. But it will happen.”

Mr. Trump says he will begin building the wall shortly after he takes office on January 20th.

Mexico also got more bad news because the president-elect once again said he is going to institute a so-called border tax which would punish American companies operating in Mexico and other countries who try to ship their products back to the USA.

TRUMP: “There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have a million more workers right now.”

So all in all there was a lot of substance in the press conference.

Mr. Trump's demeanor was direct. I saw no difference in him today than when he was campaigning.

He stated his case with authority. He was blunt and he continues to say he'll do what he promised to do.

As for the press - they are still fixated on the election.

There's no question in my mind that the hunt for a Trump-Russia connection during the campaign remains intense.

Some in the national media wanting to de-legitimize the vote.

And at this point, that's the only way to do it.

Summing up, Donald Trump helped himself today, but he'd better watch his back.

Not since Richard Nixon has the national press corps been so determined to bring someone down.

And that's the memo.

President Obama's Job Performance

2017-01-11T04:02:00Z

About an hour from now, Barack Obama will deliver his farewell address. After eight years in office, he believes he has been successful.

Others dissent.

The Wall Street Journal editorializing today:

"Yet (Barack Obama's) presidency has been a disappointment at home and abroad, a fact ironically underscored by Mr. Obama's relentless insistence that he has been a success."

So now Talking Points would like to assess, and present the facts, about President Obama on the job.

First of all, some of you believe I have been too easy on Mr. Obama.

Over the years, I've received letters like these:

FEB. 8, 2011: Matthew Richards, Natick, Massachusetts: "Mr. O, I didn't realize that you were the new spokesman for the White House."

((EDIT))

FEB. 3, 2014: Loreen Rorex, Johnson City, Tennessee, "Bill, you threw soft balls at
the president. You are losing your edge."

((EDIT))

MAY 14, 2015: Marvin Dorfman, Monroe Township, New Jersey. "O'Reilly, why are you defending President Obama?"

Talking Points replies this way.

I've been fair. I have not bashed the President, have not attacked him personally, have not bought into the opinion that he wants to undermine the United States. What I have done is analyze what he's done in a fact-based way.

So, let's take a hard look.

We'll begin with President Obama the person. Certainly as half African-American, he's a historic figure.

He has given hope to many minorities and others who see him as a person with little advantage who, through hard work, rose up to become the most powerful man in the world.

That is a positive thing. Mr. Obama is a role model for success.

On the negative side, inexplicably, the president has not improved the economic or social situation of most poor, minority Americans.

There is now more poverty in the USA than there was when he took office.

Black homeownership - down under his administration.

And racial division - way up. Groups like Black Lives Matter have polarized blacks and whites, and Mr. Obama welcomed that radical group to the White House.

It's kind of a mystery to me why Barack Obama did not concentrate more on solving the poverty problem.

The key to that is keeping families intact.

At one point, I expected Mr. and Mrs. Obama to make that theme one of their top priorities.

It never happened.

Poor education in the inner cities, a lax view on narcotics and the president's muted support of the police, have all contributed to chaos in poor neighborhoods.

Now let's take a look at the healthcare situation.

Mr. Obama's vision is good - that all Americans should have access to quality healthcare.

But the execution of Obamacare put a steep burden on working-class families.

As we all know, health insurance premiums are up, deductibles are up, and doctors accepting the health mandate are becoming fewer and fewer.

There is no question Obamacare will be repealed under President Trump and we all have to hope that the Republicans have a better plan.

On the economic front, Mr. Obama did a good job in his first year stabilizing the economy, which was in a free fall because of the mortgage-con that led to recession.

For example, he made the right decision bailing out some of the American carmakers, who have since repaid the feds.

But then Mr. Obama shifted into massive income redistribution mode.

That meant that taxes went up, regulations went up, welfare payments went up and the economy stagnated.

For eight years, the wages and the economy stagnated.

That's why Donald Trump won the election. The economics on President Obama's watch were not successful.

Period.

Now let's go overseas. There the president made five major mistakes.

The worst one - withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq.

That led to the rise of ISIS, which Mr. Obama ignored and now we have a disaster, not only inside Iraq, but worldwide.

Second was Syria.

After the tyrant Assad used poison gas on innocent people, Mr. Obama threatened Assad.

But the threat was hollow. Mr. Obama did nothing.

And so hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed, brutalized or have fled.

That has destabilized Europe and led to even more terrorism.

On the Russia front, Mr. Obama was totally impotent in the face of the tyrant Putin.

The former KGB officer did exactly what he wanted to do, including invading countries and hacking into the American political system.

Also, the Chinese do not fear Barack Obama and have now made the South China Sea international water their own.

The Chinese have also undermined the American economy, as Donald Trump has so often pointed out.

Finally, the nuke treaty with Iran is still debatable.

What is not debatable is that Iran is the primary sponsor of terrorism in the world, including the direct destabilizing of countries in the Mideast and Afghanistan.

The Iranians do not fear Barack Obama.

In international matters, it is clear that President Obama believes that global warming is more important than stabilizing and protecting the world in the face of a global jihad.

Now, global warming is real, climate change is occurring. But Mr. Obama's vision of hurting certain economic sectors in order to lessen fossil fuel intrusion cannot possibly work unless countries like India and China do the same thing.

And they are not.

So, Mr. Obama imposed regulations that hurt the American economy knowing full well that climate change would not improve worldwide.

Does that make any sense?

At this point in history, two thirds of the American people think America is on the wrong track.

But they still like Barack Obama. His approval ratings are above 50%.

That is to the president's credit. He has put forth an image of responsibility.

But as the nation's leader, Mr. Obama has not improved the economy to any significant extent, has not diminished poverty and poor education, has not brought Americans together, and has used the power of this great nation in a way that has created mayhem abroad. That is the historical record.

And it has nothing to do with ideology, or wishful thinking.

It has to do with performance.

And that's the memo.

Kate's Law Reintroduced

2017-01-10T05:14:00Z

First, the big picture. I believe that Donald Trump separated himself from his Republican competitors last year by being tough on illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump made it very clear to the American people that he believes people entering the USA illegally should be held accountable for their actions.

He also championed Kate's Law, which would impose a mandatory minimum five-year federal prison term on foreigners convicted of crimes in the USA who reenter after being deported.

Kate's Law specifically says that convicted felons are the targets, not chambermaids and farm workers.

As you may know, The Factor came up with this law after 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot to death allegedly by an illegal alien felon, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

That man had been deported five times but illegally entered here six times.

How can that possibly happen? How can the guy avoid a long prison term - defying deportation - all those times?

It's insane. And America is at fault for allowing it to happen.

The toll on the Steinle family is immense.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, July 21, 2015

JIM STEINLE, KATE STEINLE’S DAD: “The day she was killed we were walking arm-in-arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco and enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked at me and said ‘help me, dad.’ Those are the last words I will ever hear from my daughter.”

The murder trial begins February 17th.

Also last Friday, a federal judge said the Steinle family is free to sue the U.S. government for general negligence but did dismiss the family's claims against San Francisco County.

That is why Kate's Law is needed. No American family should suffer at the hands of convicted foreign felons who defy deportation.

Talking Points believes one of the main reasons Donald Trump won the presidency is that he felt the outrage over Kate Steinle.

While many other politicians, including the entire Democratic Party and President Obama, did not.

Even if you are not a politically involved person, failing to harshly punish foreigners who defy deportation after committing heinous crimes in this country is inexcusable.

The government is there to protect we the people - not to look the other way when things break down, like our immigration system.

And remember, San Francisco let Sanchez go, let him out of jail after ICE requested the county hold him.

How bad is that?

This time around we expect Kate's Law to pass as the Democrats will have a very hard time blocking it.

And that will be a tremendous victory for every American citizen.

And that’s the memo.

Putin, Trump and the Election

2017-01-06T05:14:00Z

Today in Washington, the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings about Russia allegedly subverting the presidential election.

Front and center was the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

JAMES CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: "The Russians have a long history of interfering in elections—theirs and other people's. ((EDIT)) But I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case."

Talking Points believes Mr. Clapper. However, there has been no definitive proof put forth that Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin did try to interfere with our vote.

JAMES CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: "We have invested billions and we put people's lives at risk to glean such information. And so if we were to fulsomely expose it in such a way that would be completely persuasive to everyone, then we can just kiss that off. Because we will lose it."

Mr. Clapper saying he cannot expose his sources or explain how the USA got the information about the Russian hacking.

So this becomes a very complicated matter because some Democrats are charging that the hack of Democratic stalwarts like John Podesta influenced votes.

Republicans say nonsense - that the exposed emails simply pointed out political intrigue and press corruption.

It is impossible to say if any votes were influenced by Podesta's rantings but it seems far-fetched to me.

Despite the intel consensus, President-elect Trump is not accepting of the verdict against Putin.

Mr. Trump will be briefed tomorrow by intelligence leaders and maybe that will change.

For you and me, Americans who sincerely want fair elections and justice, the hacking should be a serious matter.

Again Talking Points believes the Russians were involved with the intent to create as much chaos as possible for America.

And nothing happens in Russia at that level unless Putin approves.

But Putin is not holding a smoking gun because US intelligence has to protect its sources of information.

Summing up, the Russians did it. Putin knew about it. And President-elect Trump has to decide if further action against Russia is necessary.

And that's the memo.

A Tale of Two Cities

2017-01-05T04:54:00Z

As we have been reporting, the city of Chicago is the most violent place in America and little is being done about the incredible murder rate in some black neighborhoods.

A quick look at the stats: last year murders in Chicago were up 57% from 2015, shooting incidents up 46%, shooting victims up 47%.

On New Year's Day, 28 more people shot in Chicago.

It is obvious that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Governor Bruce Rauner will not protect innocent people and solve the problem.

But what is the problem?

The vast majority of shootings are being done by low-level gang members who are running wild in the streets.

An investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times shows that even if the cops do find a gang member with a gun, that person is given a very light sentence - maybe a year in prison.

So the justice system in Chicago is not punishing the thugs convicted of carrying illegal weapons with any severity.

That's problem number one.

Secondly, there's policing.

Here in New York City, shooting incidents are at a record low. And this is a tougher town than Chicago.

The reason shootings are down is because the New York police target the gangs and arrest them for any and all violations.

They hound gang members, truth be told.

But in Chicago, the opposite is true. The police do not want any part of engaging violent gang members.

Why? Because the liberal politicians in Chicago are making it impossible for street cops to do their jobs.

In fact, the ACLU is now running street crime in the Windy City.

Mayor Emanuel has instituted an ACLU-suggested policy that mandates a two-page police report each time a cop stops someone for questioning.

That means the cops are spending hours filling out paperwork if they even ask anyone what they're doing on a street corner at four a.m.

How insane is that?

And then there is the racist angle.

Most of those shot in Chicago are poor black people.

If the mass murder were happening in Chicago's business district, believe me, it would be stopped cold.

So Mayor Emanuel and Governor Rauner can be accused of racism because they allow the madness to continue.

In San Francisco, it's property crime.

Since 2010, crimes like arson, car theft, and larceny are up a whopping 64%.

Why? Because San Francisco politicians have stopped the police from enforcing quality of life crimes.

Therefore homeless people are all over the place - urinating and defecating in the streets, panhandling, and, when they need money to buy booze or drugs, committing crimes.

The situation is out of control and a disgrace. And that's what happens when liberal politicians demand that the police stop enforcing laws.

Look, there's a civility factor in this country.

With nearly 325-million folks living here, there have to be standards of behavior.

But in San Francisco, there are not. You can do whatever you want and therefore a beautiful city has now become blighted.

Add to that insane social policies, like San Francisco's General Assistance policy.

Ready? The city gives indigent people - homeless, those roaming around - three hundred bucks a month cash and benefits.

And where does that money go? Many times to purchase drugs and alcohol.

So if you are a West Coast drug addict, where would you go?

San Francisco of course - where the free money is.

Summing up, terrible laws, cowardly politicians, and apathetic voters all lead to chaos.

People continue to die in Chicago. And San Francisco is a chaotic mess.

But, unless voters wise up, nothing will change.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump's Inauguration

2017-01-04T04:37:00Z

There are wide reports that many entertainers are frightened to perform in the Inaugural festivities on January 20.

It's hard to pin this down, but the roster of performers today is scant.

Some of the Rockettes from Radio City Music Hall will be there.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir out of Utah is scheduled to perform.

And Jackie Evancho of America's Got Talent is also set to sing.

We hear the Beach Boys and the country-group Alabama may be appearing but that has not been confirmed.

Also not confirmed are some entertainers who reportedly believe if they show up at the Inauguration, it will hurt their careers.

The tenor Andrea Bocelli has been mentioned along with Garth Brooks - but again, we cannot confirm that.

However, it is obvious that there is a problem. And there should not be.

The Inauguration of a president celebrates a peaceful transition of power engineered by American voters.

That's what the ceremony is - not a political gesture.

So all Americans should respect the process even if you don't like the incoming president.

There should never be intimidation about attending or performing at an Inauguration.

That is un-American.

The election of George W. Bush in 2000 was perhaps the most controversial vote in the nation's history - decided by the Supreme Court.

Yet a variety of entertainers showed up at the Inauguration, including Ricky Martin, Wayne Newton, Jessica Simpson, Andrew Lloyd Webber and the Rockettes.

Even Beyonce showed up, performing with Destiny's Child at an Inaugural concert for America's youth.

So even though there was bitterness over the Bush-Gore race, the nation came together at the Inauguration.

But now that cohesive spirit seems to have changed.

The harsh truth is that there is reverse McCarthyism going on in the entertainment industry.

You'll remember that in the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy started accusing people in Hollywood of being Communists.

That led to a blacklist where people were not hired because McCarthy smeared them.

Today it seems anti-Trump zealots may be doing the same thing -- if you are a Trump supporter, you are a bad person.

And a number of entertainers believe their careers will be harmed should they associate with the new Trump administration.

Again, that is terrible, an awful state of affairs.

Talking Points believes that enough is enough with the anti-Trump movement.

The man won the election. Give him a chance. Respect the process. Let's stop the nonsense.

And that's the memo.

Abolishing the Electoral College

2016-12-21T05:40:00Z

After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the left in America is demanding that the Electoral College system, put into place in 1787, be scrapped.

But there is a hidden reason for this. As we have reported, even though Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million, the progressive state of California provided that margin, Clinton defeating Trump there by about 4.3 million votes.

So, if the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates could simply campaign in the nation's largest states and cities - New York, LA, Chicago, Houston - and rack up enough votes to pretty much win any election.

That's what the left wants - because in the large urban areas and blue states like New York and California, minorities are substantial.

Look at the landscape - Philadelphia, Dallas - Fort Worth, Miami - in all of these places the minority vote usually goes heavily to the Democrats.

Add that to New York City, LA, Chicago, and San Francisco and you don't really have a national election anymore, you have targeted populations.

Newspapers like the New York Times and the L.A. Times have editorialized to get rid of the Electoral College.

They well know that neutralizing the largely white rural areas in the Midwest and South will assure liberal politicians, get power and keep it.

Talking Points believes this is all about race. The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with.

Therefore white working-class voters must be marginalized, and what better way to do that than center the voting power in the cities?

Very few commentators will tell you that the heart of liberalism in America is based on race.

It permeates almost every issue - that white men have set up a system of oppression and that system must be destroyed.

Bernie Sanders peddled that. To some extent Hillary Clinton did. And the liberal media tries to sell that all day long.

So-called white privilege bad; diversity good.

If you look at the voting patterns, it is clear that the Democrats are heavily reliant on the minority vote.

Also on the woman vote.

White men have largely abandoned the Democrats and the left believes this is because of racism - that they want to punish minorities and keep them down.

So that's what's really going on when you hear about the Electoral College and how unfair it allegedly is.

Summing up, the left wants power taken away from the white establishment and they want a profound change in the way America is run.

Taking voting power away from white precincts is the quickest way to do that.

And that's the memo.

Phony Stories and Fake News

2016-12-20T06:26:00Z

You may have noticed that The Factor has not covered anything about the Electoral College vote because it's a completely phony story.

Donald Trump will be the next president, and it doesn't matter if one or two electoral delegates defect.

The left-wing press is blowing the story up because they want to make Donald Trump look bad, not because there's any basis in reality.

If there were to be chaos in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives would simply certify Donald Trump as president on January 6th.

So again, this is a phony story and all of those so-called journalists who participated in it are misleading you.

Now on to Russian hacking.

This is a real story and we spotlighted it back on October 12th.

Talking Points, Oct. 12

O'REILLY: “Talking Points believes that if the intel is correct and Russian hackers working for Putin did indeed intrude on the American election, President Obama must take action. First he must speak to the American people about the evidence, and second he must apply sanctions against the Putin government. These cyber-attacks are just that, attacks, so let's get on it, Mr. President.”

But President Obama did not get on it, did not debrief the American people, did not do anything as far as we can tell

Also, when I made that statement in October, no Democrats said, “Yes, that's correct. President Obama should confront the Russians with something more than words.”

But now they're whining all over the place.

As for the president, he says he took action but obviously according to his own people that action did absolutely nothing.

ABC This Week, yesterday

MARTHA RADDATZ: “President Obama also said Friday that the cyber attacks stopped after he warned Putin at an international conference in September. You've been briefed on the party's computer system. Is that right? They stopped?”

DONNA BRAZILE, DNC INTERIM CHAIR: “No, they did not stop. They - they came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly."

Ms. Brazile by the way was greatly embarrassed because some of the hacked emails showed her dishonestly feeding questions to Hillary Clinton before CNN appearances.

Ms. Brazile says she's did nothing wrong, but again, those emails were very troubling for her and for CNN.

Now the bigger picture.

We are living in a very dangerous world.

Just today in Turkey the Russian Ambassador was shot dead by a man screaming that Allah is great and railing about the situation in Syria.

In Berlin, Germany, a man driving a truck ran over scores of people at a Christmas market. You can bet this is another act of terrorism. As the body count piles up, the action specifically intended to bring harm in the Christmas season. We'll have more details shortly.

Now the president of the United States is not responsible for terrorist acts but is to be held accountable for actions of reprisal.

Again, talking tough is clearly not a strategy and doing nothing to the bad guys empowers them.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party did not really believe that the Russian hackers would derail their presidential chances, so no pressure was put on President Obama to stop the madness when it was uncovered.

But now it's a different story.

Clinton speaking to donors Thursday night in Manhattan (the NY Times obtained the audio)

HILLARY CLINTON: “We have to recognize that as the latest reports made clear, Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber-attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.”

It seems to me that Putin’s alleged favoring of Trump may be a large mistake.

By putting some very tough generals in charge of the Defense Department and national security, a message is being sent to Putin and the world not to mess with the USA.

It is clear the Russian leader and other tyrants ran wild and the Obama administration did not or could not stop them.

I guess it's possible that Putin just dislikes Hillary Clinton and believes that he can manipulate Donald Trump.

But that's speculation right now. The American public really doesn't know what the blank happened because the Obama administration is not telling us.

So now Congress is getting involved.

CNN State of the Union, yesterday

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: “We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to find out exactly what was done and what the implications of the attacks were, especially if they had an effect on our election. There's no doubt they were interfering and no doubt that it was cyber-attacks.”

Talking Points believes that Senator McCain is in a good position to gather facts and tell the folks what exactly happened and how it pertains to the presidential vote.

And we hope Mr. McCain will do that.

As for Donald Trump, he should stay out of it until he gets into office and begins being briefed by the people he has appointed to intelligence positions.

The Obama folks are not going to level with Donald Trump.

Last week we suggested to the president-elect that he not participate in speculation about the Russian hacking.

Again, it makes no sense. It happened on Barack Obama's watch -- let him deal with it.

Talking Points believes that the Russian government was involved in embarrassing the Democratic Party.

I don't know why; that's the job of the CIA to find that out.

Talking Points does not believe the hacking caused Hillary Clinton's defeat.

That is a phony line of reportage.

The American people do not care very much about what John Podesta said or what Donna Brazile did. These are secondary issues.

But the left is desperately searching for some reason to explain why Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party lost so badly.

Yes, I know the popular vote went to Mrs. Clinton, but it was all California and every fair-minded person knows that.

Take that progressive state out of the mix and it was a decisive win for trump in almost every other way.

Summing up, the left-wing media has an agenda that Trump did not win the election fairly.

The Democratic Party has an agenda that the Russians threw the election to Donald Trump.

Neither of those things are true.

And that's the memo

Should Something Be Done About Out-of-Control Professors?

2016-12-15T00:25:00Z

As we have been reporting, many colleges across the country are dominated by far-left teachers who are now hysterical about the election of Donald Trump.

OLGA PEREZ STABLE COX, ORANGE COAST COLLEGE PROFESSOR: “A white supremacist and a vice president that is one of the most anti-gay humans in this country. And so we are in for a difficult time. And then again I do think we can get past that. Our nation is divided. We have been assaulted. It’s an act of terrorism. One of the most frightening things for me, and most people in my life, is that the people who are leading the assault are among us. It is not some stranger from other country attacking our sense of what it means to be an American.”

That was said in a classroom at the Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, California.

Of course it is simply gibberish slander, intellectually absurd.

Yet the college pays that instructor to “assault,” using her word, her students.

I mean, come on. Who wants to hear that kind of diatribe in a psychology class?

So the question then becomes what should be done to stop the madness?

It's a tough one because many college professors have tenure, which means they can't be fired no matter what they do. And there is the freedom of speech issue.

But there comes a point when the nation has to know exactly what is happening in its institutions of higher learning.

If you know your history, every totalitarian regime controlled the schools.

In 1930s Germany, in the Soviet Union, in China after Mao took over, it was propaganda across the board in the classroom.

And if the teachers didn't toe the line, they were fired or worse.

Now we have the totalitarian left in America and if you don't see it their way, you are attacked and demonized.

And if you're a student, you can be punished through the grading system.

This cannot continue.

It is up to each individual state to monitor what happens in their public colleges and high schools.

Even in private school, if the institution gets taxpayer money, the state has a right to know what is going on.

It is time for governors to hold college administrators responsible for crazy stuff going on in the classrooms.

Academic freedom is one thing. Harming students with insane ideology is something else.

And that's the memo.

Christmas in America

2016-12-14T06:07:00Z

You may remember, about 10 years ago, The Factor began spotlighting companies that refused to say the words "Merry Christmas."

In fact, some of those businesses actually ordered their employees not to say it.

Well that culture war issue ignited, and we won. Most companies stopped the nonsense and Merry Christmas became a common greeting once again.

For me, it was interesting to go through that because some on the left actually denied there was any controversy at all - that I fabricated it.

More lies from a crew that is incapable of telling the truth.

Anyway this year, the American Family Association based in Tupelo, Mississippi has issued its annual Naughty or Nice list.

That tells the public which businesses are Christmas-friendly and which are not.

This year the following companies are rated five-star nice: Cracker Barrel, Hobby Lobby, Kirkland's, Lowe's, Michael's Stores and Walmart.

I remember that one time Lowe's was a problem, but obviously that has turned around.

Also on the Christmas friendly list: ACE Hardware, Banana Republic, Bass Pro Shops, Bed Bath and Beyond, Books-a-Million, Dick's Sporting Goods, Home Depot, J.C. Penney, K-Mart, L.L. Bean, Marshall's, Neiman Marcus, ProFlowers, RITE Aid, Sam's Club and Toys R Us.

Again, all of those companies use the word Christmas in their advertising and promotion.

Now for the naughty companies that kind of marginalize Christmas.

Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, Foot Locker, The Gap, The Limited, Nordstrom, Office Depot, Office Max, Petsmart, Staples and Victoria's Secret.

According to the AFA, those companies are not in the Christmas spirit.

Kind of bad news for them because Donald Trump is on the case:

TRUMP: “We're going to start saying Merry Christmas again. (APPLAUSE) How about all those department stores? They have the bells and they have the red walls and they have the snow, but they don't have Merry Christmas. I think they're going to start putting up Merry Christmas.”

Now, does the Christmas deal really matter?

Since the war has basically been won, this is a clean up operation - but the information is valid.

Many Americans celebrate Christmas because they believe that Jesus is the savior and his birth should be honored.

And because it is a federal holiday, there is no reason to diminish Christmas or insult those who believe in it.

Don't like Christmas, ignore it.

So companies and stores that embrace Christmas obviously will attract folks who feel the same way.

As for Talking Points, we're just happy that most Americans see Christmas as a positive experience.

And we're happy we could contribute.

And that's the memo.

Evaluating President-elect Trump So Far

2016-12-13T03:16:00Z

A few months ago we suggested that President Obama might want to take action against Russia for waging cyberwarfare against the USA.

Russia has been hacking into the American system for years, and Mr. Obama has done nothing about it.

Now the situation has reached critical mass because Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election.

And as we all know, WikiLeaks embarrassed the Clinton campaign by making public hacked emails that showed some members of the press secretly helping Mrs. Clinton and other embarrassing facts.

Before that Democrats really didn't care much about Russian hacking. Now they do.

The CIA and the FBI both agree that Russia is involved with breaching U.S. cyber security.

The CIA says it's because they wanted to influence the U.S. election. The FBI says it does not know the motive.

But it really doesn't matter, does it?

If Russian officials are hacking into American systems, that is cyberwarfare.

Enter Donald Trump, who says he does not believe the Russians did anything to influence the presidential vote.

He says the Democrats are just trying to trot out another excuse for losing.

Okay, his opinion; he's entitled to it.

But it might be better if the president-elect avoids the issue all together.

Mr. Trump has nothing to gain here.

Again, this happened on President Obama's watch and he is responsible for holding the Russians responsible.

Going forward, President Trump will have to deal with cyberwarfare, but right now he should sit this thing out.

On another serious note, President-elect Trump is now engaged in a war of words with China.

Mr. Trump telling Chris Wallace the "one China" policy, whereby the USA recognizes the Beijing government as the sole authority where Taiwan is involved, might not be a good thing.

China doesn't like that.

Again, it might be better if Mr. Trump postpones this confrontation until he is in office and fully briefed on the consequences of a war of words with the Chinese.

Plenty of time to make deals with China, why tee them off now?

Finally, Donald Trump's appointments.

To me they look fine.

It's not like any of the cabinet members have tremendous power; they don't.

They do what they are told to do, and all the people appointed so far have skill and experience.

Fox News is now reporting that the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, is Trump's pick for secretary of state.

I have never met Mr. Tillerson, know little about him, although reports are he has a good relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Maybe Tillerson can neutralize Putin's bad behavior.

That would be a great thing.

I expect Mr. Tillerson to be confirmed in the Senate.

Summing up, Russian hacking happened, President Obama should have dealt with it. He did not.

If it continues, President Trump will have to.

On China, let's all take it easy.

On Trump's appointments, they look good to Americans with no ideological axe.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump's Critics Aren't Happy

2016-12-09T04:11:00Z

It is a problem almost every president-elect has had; certainly Barack Obama and George W. Bush experienced it.

Those who opposed their election sought to undermine both men as soon as they won.

And that is now happening with Donald trump.

But here's the difference with Mr. Trump -- the undermining is occurring both on the left and the right.

Case-in-point, conservative George Will, a Washington Post columnist who also provides analysis for Fox News.

Will despises Trump, feels that he is an intellectual inferior and even left the Republican Party because of Trump's nomination.

Now it is certainly George Will's right as both an American and a journalist to criticize not only Donald Trump, but any powerful person.

We have no beef with that.

What is troubling, however, is that much of Will's negative analysis is driven by personal animus.

And it is here that he does his readers and viewers a disservice.

Last night on Special Report, Will hammered Trump over the Carrier situation.

GEORGE WILL: “The problem is when you have in the Carrier case, political power used to bring pressure upon a privately held corporation that has fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value and drive them off with political pressure from making economic decisions about economic assets, you are, in effect, at the end of the day, getting the federal government involved in capital allocation. There is a name for that, it's called socialism.”

Putting the annoying "at the end of the day" cliché aside, every hour of the day Will's analysis is ridiculous.

It is true that the Carrier Corporation has an obligation to maximize profits.

But if it does that by hurting the country in which it is operating, then the man in charge of that country -- the president -- has an obligation to challenge that.

Under Will's absurd analysis, any corporation hurting American workers should be left alone. Hey, it's their business, let 'em do what they want.

Does that make sense to anyone?

President Trump's obligation -- and it should have been President Obama's, as well, but it wasn't -- is to try to protect American jobs.

So Trump had a conversation with Carrier and basically said if you hurt your workers by moving to Mexico, expect that we will use legal tariffs to hold you accountable.

That's not socialism, that's hard ball economics.

Socialism, as George Will should know, is the government actually running the economy, telling Carrier what they can charge for their products or what wages they have to pay their workers. That's socialism.

Trump is simply saying to every American company, we expect you to help the USA by finding a way to keep and create jobs here.

And if you move abroad and jobs are lost, you'll pay a legal price.

Again, that's what Trump should be doing, that's what Obama did not do, and that's a big reason why wages for American workers are stagnant -- too many jobs have been moved overseas.

Memo to George Will: Drop the personal stuff.

Tell the truth.

And that's the memo.

Will Donald Trump Be Able to Unite the Country?

2016-12-08T05:13:00Z

Today, Time Magazine announced that Mr. Trump is the Person of the Year.

Then they took a swipe at him, saying "Donald Trump - President of the Divided States of America."

Time, perhaps the most politically correct publication in the country, clearly dislikes Mr. Trump.

They had to make him the Person of the Year but obviously did not want to do so.

However, the magazine is correct in saying that the USA is a divided country.

Mr. Trump claims that happened on President Obama's watch, and he will bring everybody together.

Talking Points is not sure that is possible.

To illustrate that point, let's take a look at the nation's largest city - New York.

In the presidential election, Hillary Clinton received nearly 79% of the vote.

Donald Trump - 18%.

The Big Apple rock-steady left.

You may remember that Trump actually said he might carry New York. But that was never even remotely possible.

And here's why:

Unlike San Francisco, which is steeped in socialist ideology, New York City is basically a welfare state.

The ethnic breakdown goes like this:

32% - white

29% - Hispanic

24% - black

14% - Asian

You want diversity, come to New York City.

In addition, 38% of the population here is foreign born; 17% are not citizens.

So, you are looking at a political situation where millions of New Yorkers are trying to survive in a very tough environment.

The population of New York City is now about eight-and-a-half million people, and many of them can't make a living.

So the government must support them.

Right now New York City is approaching one hundred billion dollars in debt.

The city cannot possibly pay off that money.

So it will borrow more and depend on you, wherever you live, to bail it out.

Twenty percent of New York City residents are now receiving food stamps. That's 1.7 million people at a cost of 250 million dollars a month - a month!

Other assistance to residents is more than 100 million dollars a month.

Five percent of the city's population is on disability.

Cost? Two-hundred-and-fifty-two million dollars a month.

Finally, 600,000 New Yorkers are receiving payments for public housing.

That's 7% of the population.

So you can see that New York City, the most powerful financial center in the world, is basically a dependency.

And people receiving disability checks, housing supplements, food stamps and other direct payments are not going to vote for Republicans.

Ever.

So, this is a one-party city that will never embrace a guy like Donald Trump.

This is what America has come to, its largest city is falling apart.

There is little desire on the part of the liberal city government to lift people out of welfare.

Liberal politicians actually want dependency.

For example, if the city were to investigate disability claims, they'd find that many of them are completely bogus

It's a racket. Everybody knows it.

But when 80% of the voters continue to support the far-left vision, nothing is going to change.

So even though Donald Trump is a hometown guy and believes he can bring America together, the heavy odds are he cannot.

The welfare system in many places is simply too entrenched.

And the welfare system is not going to make America great.

That's the memo.

Coming to America

2016-12-06T04:42:00Z

One of the reasons Donald Trump won the presidency is that millions of Americans now believe they are being conned on immigration.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had absolutely no interest in being responsible on the issue of people traveling to the USA illegally or even protecting Americans from vicious foreign criminals already here.

In fact, the far-left wing of that party actually wants open borders and blanket amnesty for the undocumented living all across the country.

Never mind that would create a dangerous security nightmare and run up far more government debt.

Liberal zealotry sees America as a nation driven by white privilege and wants to flood the USA with new citizens, the fewer restraints the better.

And it doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton might not be that extreme.

She put forth no vision on immigration other than the status quo, which has been a colossal failure.

Thus, Trump's tough guy approach to enforcing immigration law propelled his campaign despite the unending charges of racism that came his way

So now the question becomes, what is a fair policy in this most emotional of arenas?

For that we turn to Australia, a nation of about 24-million people but with a land mass almost exactly the same as America's.

And we have 325 million people.

So there is plenty of room to roam Down Under.

Australia has a stone-cold policy on illegal entry. If you are caught, you are forcibly taken by the Aussie military to remote locations in the South Pacific, where you can either sit for years or be deported home.

Australia accepts less than 15,000 migrants a year on a humanitarian basis.

Recently it announced it would take 12,000 Syrian refugees on top of that.

But even more recently the Obama administration said it would take more than 2,000 refugees currently languishing in the South Pacific, human beings that Australia refuses to bring to its mainland.

My question is, why not?

Why won't the Aussies take them?

Surely, desperately poor people in South Asia, or Central America for that matter, deserve sympathy.

During my time in El Salvador, I visited folks who were actually living in caves. Dogs in America have more comforts.

Judeo-Christian philosophy compels its followers to embrace the poor, and it seems that rejecting asylum-seekers and migrants goes against that tenet.

Thus, the far-left demonizes those who call for restrictions on illegal immigration, saying they are bad people.

That's what the Sanctuary City movement is all about.

But you don't hear much condemnation of Australia and inside that country both political parties support the tough immigration laws.

There is little moral debate.

By the way, if Perth for example declared itself a Sanctuary City, it would have big trouble with the Aussie military, which as I stated actually enforces immigration law.

And a general reports directly to the government in Canberra.

Australians generally believe that undocumented migrants destabilize the country and put themselves at grave physical risk by crossing oceans to get Down Under.

Also, Aussie politics have created a generous welfare state that works for a small population.

That entitlement culture would be overwhelmed and go broke if mass illegal immigration was accepted as it has been here in the USA.

Simply put, Australians do not want the enormous disruption that immigration chaos causes.

So they are sending more than 2,000 poor souls here, folks they should assimilate. And Barack Obama is happy to take them.

Are we chumps?

Or are we the most compassionate nation on Earth?

President Trump will have his hands full trying to figure out how to get things under control on the immigration front.

Here is what Talking Points recommends.

A moratorium on refugees for one year until Trump's new Homeland Security Department can reorganize and setup intense vetting procedures.

Right now the federal government cannot properly investigate refugees who want to come here. The system is broken.

All undocumented people already here must register with the feds at their local post offices within six months.

It becomes a felony if they fail to do that and immediate deportation if they are caught.

By the way, we told you very early on in the presidential campaign that mass deportations would not take place if Donald Trump were elected president.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan confirmed that yesterday:

PAUL RYAN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: “We’re not working on a deportation force. Here’s what we’re working on with respect to immigration, securing our border, enforcing our current laws. He talked about criminal aliens. That’s just enforcing laws for people who came here illegally, who came and committed violent crimes. We should enforce those laws.”

Once the federal government knows how many undocumented people are here and their circumstance, a fair system of evaluating migrants can take place.

On the borders, all of those caught trying to enter illegally will be bussed back into Mexico or Canada after being fingerprinted.

Second offense -- six months in jail then another bus ride.

A congressional mandate on how many foreign nationals should be allowed into America each year should be agreed upon.

That number should be generous, but legal papers have to be renewed each year and actual citizenship will have to be earned over a substantial period of time.

A new law that suspends all federal transportation money to individual states that tolerate sanctuary cities must be passed.

Texas is in the process of outlawing sanctuary cities, punishing them financially.

Every state should do that.

And if California says no, finance your own infrastructure. Same with all other defiant states.

Finally, build effective barriers along the southern border using the Army Corps of Engineers.

The barriers designed to stop the flow of people and drugs.

Enough is enough.

If I could, I'd help every poor and abused person in the world.

But I can't.

So I do what I can without making things worse by supporting policies that hurt the country at large.

Australia has figured this out.

We can, too.

And that's the memo.

Big Win for Donald Trump

2016-12-01T04:07:00Z

As we've stated, Mr. Trump won the presidency because of his economic vision.

He promised to stop American corporations from sending blue-collar jobs overseas:

Donald Trump in Delaware, Ohio, Oct. 20:

TRUMP: “Companies like Carrier are firing their workers and moving to Mexico. Ford is moving all of their small car production to Mexico. When I’m president, if a company wants to fire their workers and leave for Mexico or other countries then we will charge them a 35% tax when they wanna ship their products back into the United States, and they won’t leave, believe me.”

Now the Carrier Corporation says it will stay in Indianapolis, saving a thousand jobs.

There is no question that President-elect Trump, using Vice President-elect Mike Pence, put the arm on Carrier.

A president can do a lot of damage if he or she chooses to.

Carrier wised up fast and the folks know Trump is the reason:

ROBIN MAYNARD, CARRIER EMPLOYEE: “I would like to tell him thank you for going out of your way and taking your holiday away from your family and working on the Carrier and employees deal and sticking to your word and going to bat for all of us at Carrier.”

Now if Mr. Trump continues to fulfill promises, he will gain much needed support in Congress.

Right now, no Republican would dare defy Trump after a victory like Carrier.

In the long run, there are two things that Donald Trump needs to do to achieve a successful presidency.

The first is to foster an environment where good-paying jobs are created.

The second is to stop the chaotic enforcement of immigration law.

It is quite clear to Talking Points that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton put the needs of immigrants, some of them here illegally, above the needs of working folks.

For the past eight years, President Obama has encouraged illegal alien amnesty for certain groups, sanctuary cities and a colossal welfare state.

Meanwhile, the folks out in Indiana and other places were being laid off because corporations wanted to make a few extra bucks by moving to Mexico.

Trump said, “Enough.” Thus, he won the election.

Summing up, Trump is off to a good start with the Carrier deal.

He might adopt a new motto with a nod to Teddy Roosevelt: Tweet softly, but carry a big stick.

And that's the memo.

How Terrorists Are Getting into the Country

2016-11-30T03:00:00Z

This man, 18-year-old Abdul Artan, injured 11 people yesterday at Ohio State University.

Their lives will never be the same.

There is no question Artan is a terrorist - authorities saying his computer has all kinds of rotten stuff on it.

But how exactly did he get to America and to Ohio State University?

According to good work by Fox and CBS News, Artan and his family left Somalia in 2007, taking up residence at a refugee camp in Pakistan.

That's not unusual. Somalia is a failed state with terrorism everywhere.

The family stayed in Pakistan for seven years before the Obama administration allowed it to emigrate legally to the USA.

Since 9/11, about 100,000 Somalis have done that.

The Artan family was flown into Dallas, Texas where the Fox affiliate picks up the story:

REPORTER: “Catholic Charities contracts with the federal government to help refugees get an apartment, enroll in school and get access to healthcare. Catholic Charities does not pick the refugees - instead they are vetted by the State Department and its Office of Refugee Resettlement determines where they go.”

DAVE WOODYARD/PRESIDENT & CEO, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF DALLAS: “We help hundreds of people over the years and thousands are coming to America through all types of different agencies to seek comfort and aide and unfortunately bad things can happen in any walk of life and this is an example of one horrific action.”

The Artan family stayed in Texas for less than a month, eventually moving to Columbus, Ohio where Artan graduated from community college and was accepted by Ohio State.

All along the way there was little supervision of the family or the 18-year-old.

Once they got here, they were like every other American - free to move around at will.

They also received government financial assistance to help them adjust to America.

Now as you know, this was a major campaign issue between Clinton and Trump over Muslim immigration.

The Democratic Party is angry that the Republican Party wants to limit immigration from terror states.

Thus, Donald Trump was branded an anti-Muslim bigot.

But step back for a moment. While most refugees who come to the USA are good people, a significant number are not.

And when you have radicalized countries where ISIS and al Qaeda are accepted, shouldn't there be extreme vetting as Mr. Trump has proposed?

Chances are the Artan family would not have been flagged, as their records are clean.

However, it is obvious Abdul did not assimilate.

He's a terrorist by his own statements, and there are others like him living here right now.

We are a compassionate country, but there is a worldwide Islamic jihad underway and preventing harm from that has to be given priority over humanitarian concerns.

And that's the memo.

Creating a Mythological Situation

2016-11-29T02:56:00Z

The liberal press is so angry that Donald Trump won the election, they're now putting out absurd story lines designed to denigrate those who voted for Mr. Trump.

The top one is that somehow the white power movement is gaining momentum in the USA because of Trump.

You may remember that on November 19th about 275 hapless nuts showed up for a white nationalist conference in Washington, D.C.

Fifty reporters were there to greet them.

Let me give you that again -- 275 morons covered by 50 journalists.

That meeting got more press coverage than a Louis Farrakhan rally ever has.

And the minister routinely draws thousands of people to hear him say things like this:

Washington, DC Metropolitan AME Church, June 20 2015:

LOUIS FARRAKHAN: “Everywhere the white man has gone, his nature drove him to kill. Kill the brown. Kill the red. Kill the yellow. Kill my own white brother. And kill the black and make sure that the black never rise again! And hell followed. Everywhere he went, hell followed.”

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

Now for some stats:

According to the FBI in 2015 there were about one million, two-hundred thousand violent crimes committed here in the USA.

The same year there were less than 6,000 hate crimes reported.

I mean come on, does that sound like an epidemic of hate-driven violence to you?

And then there are the folks who voted for Trump and whom the media is trying to make into some kind of fascist cadre.

Bret Baier aired a very fine special called the Trump Revolution where every day Americans got their say:

FEMALE FACTORY WORKER: “If we let everybody go to Mexico, we're not going to have any jobs for our grandchildren.”

MALE FACTORY WORKER: “I think everybody is just mad and they're fed up with the government letting things like this happen.”

FEMALE FACTORY WORKER: “I appreciate any candidate that's going to do more to keep jobs in America.”

That doesn't exactly sound like a Nuremberg rally, does it?

Yet folks like those are routinely demonized by the left-wing media as racists or whatever.

The truth is there is no substantial white power movement in this country. Donald Trump won the election because of economics.

But the press will never tell you the truth.

Instead they continue to brook rubbish.

MICHELLE BERNARD, PRESIDENT OF THE BERNARD CENTER FOR WOMEN, POLITICS & PUBLIC POLICY: “There was a time when people would at least keep these thoughts to themselves and the thing that is so absolutely frightening since the election of now president-elect Donald Trump is that now we are seeing Americans normalizing hatred, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, religious freedom, people are completely against it and we don’t bat an eye.”

That statement is insane and irresponsible, and no serious news agency should foster something like that.

Summing up, the press is trumping up a white power movement story line that doesn't exist.

It's vile to suggest that it does.

Individual nuts are everywhere; assigning them status is grossly dishonest.

I am so tired of this, I can't tell you.

And that's the memo.

What President Obama Failed To Do

2016-11-17T04:21:00Z

One thing about Barack Obama, he is a confident guy. He makes me look shy.

Yesterday in Greece, he told the world that he did a heck of a job as president:

OBAMA: "People seem to think I did a pretty good job, and so there is this mismatch I think between frustration and anger, perhaps the view of the American people was, is that, 'just need to shake things up.' ((EDIT)) I think I can make a pretty strong argument that the policies that we put forward were the right ones. That we've grown faster than just about any advanced economy, and the country is indisputably better off."

Now Mr. Obama really believes what he says. In his mind he kicked serious butt as president.

And he has backup: The latest Gallup poll has the president's job approval rating at 57%, a very strong number.

However, some of his support is surely based on personal likability.

But to be fair, he does deserve some policy credit for stabilizing the economy after the mortgage-backed securities fraud almost collapsed it.

Also, for helping Americans with severe health problems -- so called pre-existing conditions -- and for conducting himself with class in the White House, as the recent meeting with Donald Trump demonstrated.

But there are some very important things President Obama did not do in eight years, things I hope President-Elect Trump will consider.

First, targeted tax cuts for businesses while at the same time phasing out deductions that drain tax receipts to the government.

Mr. Trump is an expert at this and he well understands that in order to rebuild the military and roads, bridges, etc., you need cash.

Also, persuading corporations to bring the profits they are hoarding overseas back to invest in America would be a huge economic stimulator that would expand the economy and create well-paying jobs.

If corporations would commit billions to expansion, the financial markets would go wild and the USA would take on tremendous economic momentum.

To be polite, President Obama does not understand macro-economics and generally sees private business as an opponent of social justice.

Now, on the individual tax front surely a fair percentage can be worked out with the goal being to allow American consumers to have more net income, more money in their pockets -- another major economic stimulator.

Barack Obama's philosophy is to give folks stuff rather then setting up a robust private marketplace so they could earn their stuff.

Overseas, the Obama doctrine of containment through diplomacy has not worked.

And the pain has been immense.

Millions of refugees have flooded into Europe, some of them terrorists.

The suffering of poor people in Syria and Iraq is cruel, cruel ... all because Mr. Obama does not act aggressively against the jihad.

Talking Points has put forth a solution -- NATO should formally declare war on Islamic terrorists, set up safe zones for refugees in the Middle East, and punish ISIS any way it can.

Barack Obama would never even think of doing that ... way too confrontational.

Finally President-Elect Trump should accept the Paris treaty on climate to buy some goodwill overseas. It doesn't really amount to much anyway. Let it go.

Mr. Trump should also learn from Mr. Obama's mistakes.

Most Americans want a robust economy and a vibrant national defense, including border protection.

If Donald Trump can make those two things happen, he will succeed in the toughest job in the world.

And that's the memo.

The First Challenge to President-Elect Donald Trump

2016-11-16T04:55:00Z

One of Mr. Trump's most vivid campaign promises was this:

Sept. 1, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

TRUMP: “We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”

Doesn't get more pointed than that.

But now a number of mayors across the country are defying the president-elect, saying they will not stop their sanctuary policies.

CHICAGO MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL (D): “To be clear about what Chicago is, it always will be a sanctuary city.”

(EDIT)

NYC MAYOR BILL DIBLASIO (D): “We’re not going to sacrifice a half million people who live among us who are part of our community. (EDIT) We’re not going to tear families apart.”

(EDIT)

SEATTLE MAYOR ED MURRAY (D): “I think by continuing to be a sanctuary city, we’re doing the most American thing we can possibly do.”

So let's analyze what is really happening here.

By refusing to obey federal immigration law the politicians are basically saying we want open borders.

Because anyone who gets into America illegally has a place where they can go with no repercussions.

While most migrants are law-abiding people who just want to support themselves and their families, a number of them are criminals or layabouts simply here to exploit the USA.

Those people become part of the sanctuary.

You will remember that the thug who allegedly murdered Kate Steinle was released by the county of San Francisco after ICE requested that he be held in jail so the feds could pick him up.

San Francisco let the man go despite that fact, that he had seven felony convictions in America and had been deported five times.

Kate Steinle is dead because San Francisco refuses to obey federal law.

There is a civil lawsuit underway in the case and the criminal proceeding is crawling along as well.

Now you would think any decent politician would learn a lesson from the Steinle case.

But no, these mayors -- all uber-liberals -- believe they will harvest more votes by showing phony compassion than by promoting public safety and fighting anarchy.

If the left believes everybody should be allowed into this country, say that. But know that sanctuary policies will never be able to tell the good from the bad and chaos will continue to rule.

So it comes down to what Donald Trump will do to the mayors and counties that defy him on immigration law.

He has to do something and we expect the showdown will develop quickly next year.

And that's the memo.

The Inclusion Delusion

2016-11-15T03:39:00Z

Six days after Donald Trump won the presidency, many on the left are still angry and depressed.

Thousands are protesting in the streets, believing they will soon be victims of oppression - or something not good.

Most of the demonstrators are peaceful; some are not.

Today in Los Angeles, hundreds of school kids walked out of class showing their disdain for the election. It would be interesting to hear what is bothering these students.

I suspect many of them have been inspired by immigration activists who have been working the West Coast very hard.

Apart from wanting open immigration, one of the main beefs on the left is that the philosophy of inclusion is endangered by Trump:

NORTH CAROLINA NAACP PRESIDENT REV. WILLIAM BARBER: "It's irrational for people to say they voted for Trump for change when in reality the very policies that President Obama put in place actually helps whites, blacks and Latinos. What I believe is when you have fear rooted in racism, it's irrational."

((EDIT))

OBAMA: "America at its best is inclusive and not exclusive - that we insist on the dignity and God-given potential and worth of every child."

((EDIT))

REP. XAVIER BECERRA (D-CA): “I've heard everything from kids afraid to go to school because they're not sure their parents will be home when they get there. I've heard some families talk about not going to work. I've heard some people afraid to walk the streets because they may look like they're Muslim, I've heard everything. And there is a great deal of apprehension.”

Apparently the anti-Trump people believe that eight years of the Obama administration have brought about an American unification, that we are basically harmonious in this country and now all that harmony has dissolved because Trump was elected.

Is it me or is that point of view about as strange as Kanye West wanting to run for the White House?

The fact is more than 60 million Americans do not feel that President Obama included them in his grand left-wing vision, thus they voted against continuing his legacy by giving power to Mr. Trump.

Stated clearly there is not a man on this earth more opposite Barack Obama than Donald Trump.

Sixty million folks is a huge crew and, again, many of them feel excluded, not included, by the president's policies.

Now let's get more specific.

It is not inclusive to spit in the eye of religious Americans by forcing nuns to fund birth control and promoting abortion without limits.

I think all sane people would agree that is not inclusive to Americans who hold sincere beliefs on life.

Same thing with forcing Americans to pay more for health insurance so the poor can have free or subsidized health care with no strings attached.

That's good for the have-nots, but millions of working Americans are not included in the benefits of ObamaCare. They are hurt by higher premiums and lack of medical choices.

It is not inclusive to ignore the hard drug epidemic in America that is shattering families and killing thousands while diverting the attention of the Justice Department into controversies like who can use which bathroom.

Then there's illegal immigration. I hope the kids in L.A. will listen up.

It is not inclusive to fail to monitor the workplace so that foreign nationals who have no right to be here can waltz on in and secure jobs.

That excludes American citizens from fair marketplace competition because many illegal immigrants work cheaper, thus driving down salaries.

The fantasy of open borders is not inclusive when most Americans strongly reject that concept.

On the safety front it is not inclusive to fail to protect the poor in Chicago from the murderous gang violence that has been going on for years while the city fathers did absolutely nothing to contain it.

My family is protected from gang violence, but that is not the case for millions of inner-city residents all over the country.

Therefore, many urban folks are not included in effective public safety policies.

Likewise, failing to protect all Americans from illegal alien felons who defy deportation is not inclusive. There should be zero tolerance for those people.

Instead, cities like San Francisco harbor them, excluding all law-abiding Americans from the protection they deserve and pay for through tax levies.

Children in bad schools are not included in quality education, are they?

The left fights desperately against charter schools and vouchers for the poor, which would give low-income families school choice.

Memo to the progressive community: Opposing school competition is not inclusive at all!

Hating your neighbor because he or she holds different life views is not inclusive.

Despising white or black or Asian or Hispanic folks is not inclusive.

Disparaging gays is not inclusive.

But forcing business people to support gay nuptials when their religious beliefs are challenged is not inclusive either.

We have a long history of conscientious objection in this country, do we not?

It is not inclusive for government to target the assets of successful Americans while demonizing them like Bernie Sanders does.

Fair share contains the word fair.

Achievers in America, if they are honest, deserve applause, not derision based on jealousy and entitlement.

It is not inclusive to punish those Americans with assets by seizing their property after death and imposing a hyper-taxation on them.

Reasonable taxation is necessary. Gouging is oppressive.

Finally, the national media in this country generally excludes traditional Americans from fair play.

They mock and demean conservative folks, sometimes even branding them racist, sexist and haters of one group or another.

This awful trend is championed on the ‘Net, which pretty much excludes anyone who is not liberal from inclusion in the good person club.

Nothing the government can do about that other than criticize dishonest and hateful reporting.

But apart from Fox News, President Obama offered little criticism of the media that generally adores him.

So you are living in a fantasy world if you think the liberal administration of the past eight years has encouraged inclusion.

It has not.

And the millions of Americans who have been excluded have now put an end to the inclusion delusion.

A good thing.

That's the memo.

Anarchy in the Streets

2016-11-12T04:47:00Z

About 4,000 protesters took to the streets in Portland, Oregon last night -- more than 20 arrested as radicals turned the demonstration into a disgraceful spectacle.

((FOOTAGE OF PORTLAND PROTESTERS))

Now I lived in Portland. It's a beautiful place but run by permissive, progressive people.

They have allowed the downtown area to become a squatters haven, full of drug addicts and alcoholics who lay about, sometimes menacing passers-by.

Tough place to take kids.

So it comes as no surprise that the City of Roses has become ground zero for anarchy.

The solution to violent protest is to charge anyone who destroys property or hurts another person with rioting.

That's a Class C felony in Oregon, carrying a prison term of up to five years.

But I can tell you that will not happen in Portland. Most of these anarchists will receive no punishment whatsoever.

And therein lies a very dangerous situation.

The election of Donald Trump has shaken the progressive community.

In the space of four days they have gone from having some power to nothing.

President Trump is not going to pander to the far left and they know it.

And that's the way democracy goes. If the people believe political policies are not working, they change the structure.

And then we have the race component.

In Chicago, 49-year-old David Wilcox was beaten by two men while a crowd screamed, “Don't vote Trump!”

Footage of white man David Wilcox being beaten by two black men in Chicago.

FEMALE BYSTANDER (OFF CAMERA): “You voted Trump? You voted Trump? Yeah! Yeah, he voted Trump. Yeah!”

FEMALE BYSTANDER (OFF CAMERA): “Beat his ass!”

MALE BYSTANDER (OFF CAMERA): “Don’t vote Trump.”

FEMALE BYSTANDER (OFF CAMERA): “Don’t vote Trump! Don’t vote Trump.”

Now that is a definite hate crime, but Illinois does not categorize political violence in that way.

And based on Chicago's record, those thugs will receive very little punishment.

That's why the Windy City is the most violent place in the country; the progressive structure will not stop the madness.

That display should cause every state to classify political violence as a hate crime because that's what it is.

California, Iowa, West Virginia, D.C., Louisiana and South Carolina have already done that.

Everybody else should get on it.

Summing up, a free election should be respected. Those who harm other people and destroy property in the name of protest are criminals, and society should punish them harshly.

And that's the memo.

Is a Civil War Brewing in the USA?

2016-11-11T04:41:00Z

As we mentioned last night, the voters rebelled and Donald Trump won the presidency because of that.

Just a few hours after the election was called though, some anti-Trump protesters took to the streets.

Nothing major, but the spectacle got intense in Oakland.

((Protesters chanting))

The main beef seems to be that left-wing protesters do not respect an honest election.

By the way, that's a hallmark around the world. Every Communist and socialist takeover from Cuba to Venezuela to Soviet Russia back in the early 20th century featured violence and assaults on freedom.

Here in the USA we honor protest but increasingly we are seeing people who want our system destroyed.

PROTESTER: “If we don’t fight, who is going to fight for us? People had to die for your freedom where we’re at today. We can’t just do rallies, we have to fight back. There will be casualties on both sides. There will be, because people have to die to make a change in this world. Trump, enough with your racism. Stop splitting families. Don’t split my family.”

Now, do I believe that woman wants to kill people? No, I don't. I think she is simply hysterical.

But there are people, agitators ,who do want to hurt you if you do not believe the way they do:

PROTESTER: “A lot of us, especially I think as young people, are really shocked and not okay with this decision, not okay with our system. ((EDIT)) We’re here to speak out, we’re here to really create the revolution that we know is possible.”

That woman is a moron. The revolution is going the other way, as we saw when almost 60 million Americans voted for Trump, a man with no political experience.

That ballot-box protest was peaceful. It's the way our republic works. No one was hurt, no one terrorized, no one killed.

Unfortunately, our system is not being respected in many American public schools.

More than a thousand students walked out of Berkeley High School in California.

((PROTESTERS CHANTING “LOVE TRUMPS HATE,” AND “NOT OUR PRESIDENT.”))

And in San Francisco, there's talk that the state of California should secede from the union.

CALIFORNIA MAN: “I would love to see us become our own country in some ways – the Republic of California because it’s just so surreal – it feels unreal.”

That sounds a lot like the South before the Civil War, does it not?

Finally, the race hustlers are very angry. Chief among them Al Sharpton, who despises Donald Trump.

SHARPTON: “But he cannot say he did not run a campaign that has created a lot of racial fears and a lot of divisiveness and he played to the crowd and he knew what he was playing to. I know him here in New York. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was playing to the worst elements. ((EDIT)) We need to analyze, this man's going to be president and all that many of us have fought for during our lives is at stake. And we are not going down without a fight and Donald needs to know that.”

So what kind of fight, Al? Are you going to encourage violence like you've done in the past?

Are you going to spout hatred, which is one of your trademarks?

Are you going to divide Americans along racial lines, which has made you a fortune?

I'd like to see Al Sharpton run for office, then we'd find out what kind of constituency he really has.

And on the racial front, Talking Points has analyzed the vote on Tuesday.

We found that more than a million African-Americans stayed home as compared to 2012.

The stats are these:

There were about 15.6 million votes cast by blacks.

In 2012 that number was 16.7 million.

The effect was devastating on the Democrats, as Trump won Wisconsin by just 27,000 votes.

In Michigan, he's ahead by 12,000 votes.

And in Pennsylvania, Trump won by 68,000 votes.

Had black Americans voted the same way they did in 2012, say hello to President Hillary Clinton.

The reason some African-Americans did not turn out is that a number of African-Americans simply do not trust Mrs. Clinton.

On the Donald Trump front, he got 13% of the black male vote, as opposed to Mitt Romney getting 11% back in 2012.

Black females supported Trump to the tune of four percent, as opposed to three percent last time around, so Trump outperformed Romney by three points among blacks.

Summing up, Talking Points respects sincere protest. If you believe Donald Trump is not good for America, there is no problem with you displaying that opinion.

However, if you hurt someone, destroy something or promote anarchy, you then become a danger to the republic.

That kind of stuff needs to be punished and quickly.

Also, we are living in an amazingly destructive politically correct environment here in America.

Just because something offends you, doesn't mean you have the right to hurt or destroy.

The new president might want to make that very clear.

And if you don't like it, Canada and Mexico are nearby.

They might be happy to have you. Then again, they might not.

And that's the memo.

The People Revolt, Trump Wins

2016-11-10T04:46:00Z

In perhaps the most stunning political story in American history, the folks rejected corruption and unfair federal policies and delivered vast power to a maverick political novice who is promising to treat working Americans with respect.

There is no question that the Democratic machine waged an arrogant campaign that justified Hillary Clinton's incredible record of ethical deficiencies.

While many politicians distort and mislead, Mrs. Clinton seems incapable of speaking the truth.

Her exploitation of a massive charitable foundation for her own benefit is simply stunning.

Even more troubling, she sincerely believes that she did nothing wrong or has ever done anything wrong.

Americans, even some who voted for her, noticed the narcissism.

Thus, they denied her power.

Here's what Talking Points said last Wednesday when I explained why Clinton might lose:

O'REILLY, Nov. 3: “There should be grave concern in the Clinton camp. The reason the secretary may lose is that the tipping point may have been reached. If you are familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's theory, bad things mount up and then suddenly at a dramatic moment, everything comes crashing down.”

That’s exactly what happened. The American people have had enough of Hillary Clinton.

On the policy front, important statements were made yesterday.

First, working folks are tired of supplementing millions of people who are gaming the system.

Enough with a chaotic, federally-imposed healthcare system that punishes productive people with high insurance fees so that other Americans can access free healthcare.

Safety nets are vital for the suffering poor, but a vast income-redistribution scheme that is clearly unconstitutional is abusive.

President-elect Trump has vowed to replace Obamacare and that can't come fast enough.

Also, there is no question that a weak federal government has allowed immigration into America to become a national scandal.

Hillary Clinton has no interest in fixing any of that, shamelessly pandering to the Hispanic community in order to harvest votes.

The fact that Mexican cartels are harming this nation by smuggling narcotics and undocumented people in here does not seem to faze Clinton or her party in the least.

The fact that Democrats will not even vote for Kate's Law, which would protect Americans from dangerous illegal alien felons, is insane.

The voters noticed.

On the workplace front, workers cannot increase their earning power if business is strangled by onerous taxation and regulation.

It is abundantly clear that liberal America believes corporate America is the enemy and must be punished.

Hillary Clinton bought into that, intimidated by radical Senators Sanders and Warren.

Unless, of course, she herself is handed corporate money ... that's fine.

Voters noticed.

But the real enemy -- Islamic terrorists -- were not to be unilaterally confronted by the USA no matter how many innocent people they slaughtered.

No, the Obama-Clinton doctrine was to wait for international consensus before taking action and never offend by using the words “Islamic terrorism.”

Voters noticed.

Then there was the shocking admission by Hillary Clinton that, despite being a Christian, she believes unborn babies have no rights whatsoever and can be killed up until birth if the mother's health is in question.

That extreme position goes directly against homicide laws in this country and unmasked Clinton as a radical extremist in the eyes of Americans who value life over destructive ideology.

I could go on about Hillary Clinton, but enough.

I hope she takes some time off, then comes back and reforms her charity in order to do some good in the world.

Now on to Donald Trump.

He may not realize it but the vicious, dishonest national media actually helped him with the voters.

Again, the masks came off during the campaign. Take a look at this reaction during the Trump victory:

VAN JONES, CNN: “We've talked about everything but race tonight. We've talked about income, we've talked about class, we've talked about region, we haven't talked about race. This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country, it was a whitelash against a black president, in part. And that's the part where the pain comes.”

((EDIT))

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: “Let's remember what the Trump supporters are voting for - he asked for a ban on Muslims, build a wall, he offended Mexicans, the disabled, lashed out at a Gold Star family. The military fighting in Mosul - he said they shouldn't tell people what's happening, the Access Hollywood tape.”

((EDIT))

COKIE ROBERTS, ABC NEWS: “There probably is a strong sentiment about not having a woman president. And that is something that, we've never had, a woman president, and we've talked about the excitement among women to have a woman president, but there's always in these situations at least equal amounts of hostility to that kind of change.”

That's just bull. Mrs. Clinton's loss had nothing to do with her gender.

For the record, I came on at 8:15 last night and said this:

O'REILLY, last night: “Well, Trump is competing pretty well, I think, across the board. ((EDIT)) But, I think that at this point it will be foolish to make any kind of broad assessment of what the vote is going to turn out to be. It doesn't look like there's going to be any shocking upsets or shocking vote tallies anywhere. It's a slug-out right now.”

We are proud of our campaign coverage; it was accurate and tough-minded.

On Monday, I told you that Republicans would hold the Senate, which they did.

Much of the credit for The Factor's perceptive campaign reporting goes to my staff.

I'll deal with that later in the broadcast.

Apart from us, the collapse of an objective press angered many Americans who still believe in fair play.

That's why the polling failed. Many voters simply said blank you and refused to participate when asked their opinion.

Investor’s Business Daily was the best poll and you might consider adding that publication to your life.

Distrust of the media is at an all-time high in America. So when left-wing zealots masquerading as journalists pounded Trump without mercy, voters grew numb to it.

Some of that even happened on this network as a few commentators tried to make names for themselves at Trump's expense.

Same thing with some anti-Hillary analysts.

There is a difference between tough, fact-based political interviews and playing to those in the politically correct fanatical bleachers.

Is there not?

So the press actually helped Trump win.

How ironic.

Finally, a personal note.

Very tough race for me to cover.

I’ve known President-elect Trump for a long time.

But I had to challenge him and I did.

One columnist at The Washington Post, Callum Borchers, noticed, and I am grateful for his honesty in a sea of media deceit.

As for Hillary Clinton, we gave her fair play even though her campaign lied to us.

Shocking, right? But we maintained our professional posture.

Props should also go to the Fox News election folks who made CNN and some of the other networks look foolish.

FNC was far ahead on calling states and giving solid information.

In the end, voters had their say.

Memo to Donald Trump: It wasn't rigged.

And that's the memo.

The Presidential Election of 2016 Is Here

2016-11-08T05:00:00Z

No sense in guessing who will win. According to the polls, the election is very close.

I will predict that Republicans will hold both the House and the Senate.

Currently there are eight dead-heat Senate races. I believe the GOP will win five of those.

That means they will have a 51-49 advantage if they don't win any of the others.

On the presidential front, here are the final polls.

Bloomberg has Clinton up by three.

Investor’s Business Daily has Trump up by two.

CBS News has Clinton up by four.

And Fox News has Clinton up by four.

In the battleground states Quinnipiac has Clinton leading by one in Florida.

Emerson has Trump up by seven in Ohio.

The New York Times has it a tie in North Carolina.

And Remington Research has Trump up by one in Nevada.

In New Hampshire there is chaos.

Emerson has Clinton up by one.

But WMIR has Clinton up by a whopping 11 points.

Someone will be embarrassed tomorrow.

Four years ago, a man named Nate Silver correctly predicted every single state in the Obama-Romney race.

Here's what he says about Clinton-Trump:

NATE SILVER, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM: “We show a three-point lead nationally for Clinton, 2-1 favorite. The Electoral College map is less solid for Clinton than it was for Obama four years ago, where four years ago we had Obama ahead in states totaling 320 some electoral votes. Clinton has 270, so one state away from potentially losing the Electoral College. You'd rather be in her shoes than Donald Trump, but it's not a terribly safe position.”

Again, Talking Points is not going to make a prediction on the presidential race but I will tell you that the Trump folks are hanging their hopes on voters who shun the polls who do not participate in that kind of a thing.

Hillary Clinton is pinning her hopes on a high minority turn out.

According to the last Fox poll, Mrs. Clinton is winning blacks 89 to four.

Hispanics 63 to 30.

Now there is no question that we the people have learned an awful lot in this campaign.

The WikiLeaks hacking has exposed corruption in the press far beyond what we knew.

Both CNN and NBC News apparently have extensive ties to the Democratic establishment.

And over the weekend we learned that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who The Factor has scrutinized before, apparently collaborated on a column with a DNC staffer named Tyler Lykins.

Mr. Milbank did not mention that to his readers.

The press corruption is part of the reason Donald Trump continues to say that the whole process is rigged -- from the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, to campaign reportage, to the actual voting.

And today the Daily Caller is reporting that Clinton confidant and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to sign thousands of letters allowing perhaps as many as 60,000 convicted felons to vote.

If that is true, it's very disturbing.

In 2014 the U.S. Senate race, which Democrat Mark Warner won, was decided by 18,000 votes in Virginia.

Summing up, dirty campaign unpopular candidates.

The Factor has risen above the fray and provided you with reliable information throughout.

We are proud of that. It will be fascinating to see how Americans respond tomorrow.

And that's the memo.

Tuesday Cannot Come Fast Enough

2016-11-04T23:45:00Z

A poll by CBS News says that 82% of Americans are disgusted with the presidential campaign.

Just 13% are excited by it.

Pretty much everyone I know can't wait until the vote is over.

Yes, there is a lot at stake but all the negativity has not been good for the country.

TRUMP: "Hillary Clinton has engaged in far reaching criminal conduct and in an equally far reaching criminal cover up, including the destruction of 33,000 emails after receiving - after, can you imagine if I did that? ((EDIT)) That alone is big problems, for which she got away with murder. Honestly she has no right to be running."

((EDIT))

CLINTON: "Just a few days ago, Donald Trump was endorsed by the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan. They wrote their endorsement under the endorsement of his campaign, 'Make America Great Again.' They said it's about preserving white identity and they've placed their faith and hope in him."

To be fair Donald Trump has nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan and Hillary Clinton has not been charged with anything yet.

Now there is a tradition of nasty presidential campaigns in America going all the way back to John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson.

But in this hyper-computer age where internet smears dominate, the discourse critical mass has been reached.

There is no question that both candidates despise each other and that many Americans are angry about the state of their country.

All of that negative emotion can be destructive.

Talking Points has tried to cover the campaigns in a fair way and I believe we have succeeded.

We do not cheap shot the candidates, but we do not shy away from telling you the truth about them.

My analysis of the recent Al Smith dinner in New York City is a good example of that.

For those of you who watch this program, you know that we believe that many far-left policies are damaging the USA.

And the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is embracing those policies.

My problem with Hillary Clinton is twofold -- she is not candid in her assessment of herself.

And that she has veered sharply to the left.

If Americans allow her to nominate a Supreme Court justice, things could get very intense for this country.

On the other side Donald Trump, who has been accessible to us, is not experienced in dealing with complicated geopolitical matters.

If elected, he will have to rely heavily on advisors and we do not know whether Mr. Trump will listen to them or not.

At this point whoever is elected president will enter the office as the most unpopular victor in history.

There is simply too much bitterness for it to evaporate in a matter of weeks.

Talking Points respects sincerely held beliefs, even those that go against my conscience.

But we are not seeing that kind of respect in this campaign.

Here's a vivid example.

Last week the Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre where I live issued a very heartfelt letter on abortion.

While the bishop did not take a political side, he clearly states that anyone who would support taking the life of a late-term baby for anything other than the life of the mother is participating in a grave injustice.

The bishop and every other cleric in this country have a perfect right to state that position without being attacked or scorned.

Hillary Clinton's position is that any late term abortion should be acceptable if the mother's health is in some kind of jeopardy.

But as we all know, health could mean anything, which is why there are laws against late-term abortion.

Mrs. Clinton's position is extreme but has gone relatively unnoticed.

Finally, we never endorse candidates here. We never tell you for whom to vote.

We also understand that this campaign has been awful for the spirit of this nation.

And that's the memo.

Hillary Clinton Could Lose the Election

2016-11-04T03:29:00Z

Most of the polls say the same thing: Donald Trump is gaining momentum.

FNC's analysis of the Electoral College now has Hillary Clinton only slightly above the 270 votes needed to win.

So there should be grave concern in the Clinton camp.

The reason the secretary may lose the election is that the tipping point has been reached.

If you are familiar with Malcolm Gladwell’s theory, bad things mount up, then suddenly at a dramatic moment everything comes crashing down.

For Hillary Clinton, the FBI may be the tipster.

Not only is the email investigation reopened, but now Fox News is reporting that the Clinton Foundation is also under heavy scrutiny by federal investigators.

We will give you the facts on both stories in just a few moments.

It seems that many voters are becoming disenchanted with the whole Clinton situation because the controversies are endless.

We're not talking about fervent Democrats or liberal zealots.

We are talking about ordinary Americans who vote on the basis of what's best for the country.

Early in the campaign, Talking Points gave Hillary Clinton some good advice and that was to speak directly to the American people through a series of interviews.

Explain the email stuff.

Spell out the Clinton Foundation controversy.

Give straight answers to straight questions.

The Clinton campaign told us she would likely do an interview with The Factor.

That has turned out not to be true.

Even when Mrs. Clinton did appear here on the phone talking about the terror attack in France, she indicated she was going to speak with me.

But this is not personal. Since September 12th Hillary Clinton has not done one national television interview with a journalist.

She is hiding.

She is also imperious, feeling that she is above questioning.

And if elected president you can expect very little interaction with the press or with the folks from Hillary Clinton.

So all of this, the continuing ethical problems, the detachment from the voters, the attitude that she deserves the presidency, all of it is playing into her declining poll numbers.

There are five days left to the vote. We expect more hacking leaks and perhaps some new personal attacks on Donald Trump.

But the only thing holding Mrs. Clinton up right now is Mr. Trump's negatives.

But they will not mean very much if the marginal Clinton support stays home on Election Day.

And that is a real possibility.

Summing up, Hillary Clinton thought she had this election locked up but she could very well find herself defeated come November 8th.

The tipping point may have been reached.

And that's the memo.

Can the Presidential Candidates Solve Dangerous Problems?

2016-11-03T03:29:00Z

With five days left in the campaign, both candidates are ramping up the rhetoric.

I think it would be fair to say that both Trump and Clinton know what the problems are, but have mostly put forth general solutions.

Here's a prime example.

Speaking in Florida yesterday, Hillary Clinton spotlighted the danger that some young Americans face on the streets where they live.

Mrs. Clinton apparently believing the gun threat is upending society:

HILLARY CLINTON: “Something is wrong when young people just staring their lives are dying. Something is wrong when so many parents live in fear that their child will be hurt or killed, going to the movies, sitting in a first-grade classroom, attending a Bible study. The list goes on. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and responsible gun owners.”

What Hillary Clinton has to know is that so far this year in the city of Chicago, 585 people have been killed and 3,100 wounded by gun fire.

Most of those poor, black Americans.

But the problem is not gun control.

Chicago and the state of Illinois have strict gun-possession measures.

But obviously the thugs who are shooting people don't really care about those measures.

Therefore it is a total waste of time for Hillary Clinton or any politician to say that more gun control measures are going to solve the problem of street violence.

There is a solution but neither Clinton nor Trump has mentioned it.

In the USA anyone committing any crime with a gun, even simple illegal possession, should be subject to federal mandatory prison sentences.

All gun crimes should become federal crimes.

That means that if cops in Chicago find a gang member or anybody else carrying an illegal weapon, they will be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney.

And if convicted, serve at least five years in a federal penitentiary.

That way American law enforcement could take not only guns off the streets but people who illegally carry them and-or use them to commit crimes.

And the upshot -- pardon the pun -- is that legal gun owners would be left alone.

Now this is a simple solution, but Hillary Clinton would never support it.

Because she and many other liberals believe there are too many Americans in prison, and we should be more understanding of criminal behavior.

That mindset has led to the carnage we have in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis.

Talking Points does not know whether Donald Trump would support federalizing gun crimes.

But he should.

Mr. Trump has been endorsed by the NRA and says he will uphold the rights of Americans to defend themselves with firearms.

But he and every other politician must know that criminals can easily get guns and that situation has to be confronted.

So when we vote for president next Tuesday, we might think about candidates who really want to solve problems as opposed to candidates who just want to blow smoke.

And that's the memo.

The Truth About Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

2016-11-02T03:50:00Z

In the wake of the latest email chaos, Donald Trump is gaining in the national polling.

The latest ABC News tracking poll has Trump up by one. Rasmussen has the race tied. Investors Business Daily has Hillary Clinton up by one.

The Real Clear Politics average -- Clinton by 2.2 percent, which is a virtual tie.

But it all comes down to electoral votes and we will analyze those in just a few moments.

No matter who wins the presidency, Americans will be uneasy.

Let's take Hillary Clinton first.

Mrs. Clinton has devoted herself to public service for three decades but has not really achieved anything outstanding.

Her major accomplishment was helping the State and City of New York after the 9-11 attack.

As senator here, she did a good job getting resources to a devastated area.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton actively participated in President Obama's failed attempt to place the USA in a subordinate position.

As we all know, Mr. Obama did not want to lead. Rather, he hesitated in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in confronting Russia.

That policy is turning out to be disastrous, and Hillary Clinton was his secretary of state for much of the retreat.

That is not a partisan analysis - that is fact. All you have to do is look at what's happening in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, the South China Sea, Iran and the Persian Gulf.

Foreign policy under Barack Obama has been a chaotic failure.

Our enemies do not fear us.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, there is really no reason for optimism.

She supported the failure of Obamacare. She has veered sharply left in her social beliefs. Now she doesn't even oppose partial birth abortion on the day a baby would be born.

As for the economy, Mrs. Clinton is a tax-and-spend liberal and that policy has not stimulated growth for eight long years.

On the other side there is Donald Trump.

Completely untested in geo-politics, Mr. Trump has made big promises that he will return prosperity to the USA and regain a leadership role for America in the world.

That will not be easy and Mr. Trump has no track record - no achievements to bolster his rhetoric.

Instead, he has a checkered business record.

Although to be fair, he has overcome setbacks to build a very powerful business brand.

Mr. Trump is running as an outsider who promises to clean up Washington and that message alone has a tremendous appeal.

As everyone knows, his personal life as an entertainer has been controversial.

He is a blunt speaker who sometimes does not think before he makes public statements.

That has hurt him with minorities and Americans who fear confrontation.

If Mr. Trump is elected president, he will take the office with the least amount of political experience of any commander-in-chief in history.

So voters are faced with more negatives than positives in this election.

Hillary Clinton is portrayed as a dishonest woman who has had controversy after controversy.

Donald Trump is portrayed as an immature rogue who has had controversy after controversy.

That's the choice America faces one week from today.

In the end, it all comes down to your own belief system and which candidate better reflects that.

And that's the memo.

Hillary Clinton and the Law

2016-11-01T03:16:00Z

The October surprise is here.

The FBI saying it is examining new evidence over allegations that Hillary Clinton may have violated national security by using a private email system as secretary of state.

Mrs. Clinton thought she had put this to rest when FBI Director Comey said the case was not strong enough to prosecute.

Upon hearing that, Congressman Elijah Cummings was overjoyed with Comey.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD), JULY 7 OVERSIGHT CMTE HEARING: “I don't know whether your family's watching this, but I hope that they are as proud of you as I am, because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about.”

But that was then.

After Friday's announcement that Director Comey was reopening the investigation, Cummings had a different take.

CUMMINGS, MSNBC TODAY: “I think here, Director Comey made a grave mistake. We all make mistakes, but this is a grave mistake.”

My question, how does the congressman know?

He has not seen what the FBI has seen.

The truth is Elijah Cummings and other Democrats don't want to know the truth, don't want justice to take place.

And that holds true for the President of the United States Barack Obama.

Based on reporting by Fox News and other agencies, Talking Points has come to the conclusion that the president made it quite clear to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that he did not want any prosecution of Hillary Clinton or any investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Mrs. Lynch got the message and, according to the Wall Street Journal, is furious that FBI Director Comey has reopened the email investigation.

For his part Comey had to inform Congress about possible new information because in September he said this:

House Judiciary Cmte hearing, Sept. 28 2016

REP. LAMAR SMITH (R-TX): “Would you re-open the Clinton investigation if you discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial?”

JAMES COMEY: “It's hard for me to answer in the abstract. We would certainly look at any new and substantial information.”

Comey is not a fool. He knew that if emails on Huma Abedin's computer contained classified national security information that he, Comey, would eventually take the fall if he did not pursue obvious leads.

So he had to go public even though reports are Loretta Lynch did not want him to do so.

The whole thing is a mess, with politics perhaps trumping justice.

Even former Attorney General Eric Holder weighed in, saying that Comey was wrong.

This is the same Holder who was held in contempt of Congress because he failed to turn over documents related to the fast and furious scandal.

Holder ran his Justice Department in the most partisan, political way he could, a deplorable situation.

Unfortunately it looks like Attorney General Lynch is doing the same thing.

There is no question the new email exposure is hurting Hillary Clinton.

A new ABC News poll says 34% of Americans are now less likely to vote for her.

Also, her poll numbers are falling. The Real Clear Average is now less than three percent in her favor, down substantially in a week.

Mrs. Clinton is not happy.

HILLARY CLINTON, today: “I’m sure a lot of you may be asking what this new email story is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election with no evidence of any wrong doing with only days to go. That’s a good question.”

And it is a question that deserves an answer.

For his part, Donald Trump, who condemned FBI Director Comey for letting Clinton off the hook last summer, is now happy.

DONALD TRUMP, today: “And I have to give the FBI credit, that was so bad what happened originally. And it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts.”

Talking Points is not sure whether it took a lot of guts because, as stated, Comey would have eventually been held accountable if the emails on Ms. Abedin's computer showed national security violations.

So while Director Comey was covering his butt in the summer, he may be covering it again.

Finally there is a civil war within the FBI.

Some career agents have offered their resignations because they do not believe the Clinton email investigation was conducted in a rigorous way.

Comey, Lynch and President Obama could have saved the nation all this turmoil had they done what they should have done in the first place: Convened a federal grand jury to review the evidence presented by the FBI.

That would have gotten politics out of it.

But in America at this point in history, justice is taking a back seat to politics.

Not acceptable.

And that's the memo.

How the Clinton Charitable Foundation Is Being Run

2016-10-28T03:21:00Z

Hackers have released new information taken from emails stolen from John Pedesta, Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman, that show the Clinton Foundation is run more like a business than a charity.

This man, Douglas Band, was a top fundraiser for the Foundation. But at the same time he was running a company called Teneo and booking speeches for Bill Clinton.

So, Mr. Band was a very busy guy. Not only did he bring in millions of dollars to the foundation, he set up millions of dollars in speaking fees for Bill Clinton and a hefty income for himself, consulting with some folks who donated money to the foundation.

It is a tangled web but you get the picture - money went to charity, money went to Bill Clinton, money went to Doug Band.

In addition, The Factor has studied the 2014 tax return from the Clinton Foundation.

According to this document filed with the IRS, millions was spent on non-charitable expenses.

In 2014, the Clinton Foundation received $338 million in revenue.

Sixty-four percent of that money went for charitable purposes.

The rest was either saved, spent on administrative expenses or invested.

Included in the expenses are lavish salaries for Clinton pals.

Then CEO Eric Braverman received $532,000 in total compensation.

Bruce Lindsey, almost $400,000.

Mark Gunston, $314,000.

Maura Pally, $284,000.

And Dennis Cheng, almost $270,000 in total compensation.

In addition, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton used private jets to fly around on foundation business.

That's legal, but rare.

Charities usually use scheduled airlines to save money.

To be fair, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are very high-profile people. Secret Service agents are needed.

But there is no question the private air travel afforded them an opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do and go wherever they wanted to go.

That is a huge advantage for a politician planning to run for president.

Talking Points believes the Clinton Foundation is a joint venture - business, political and charitable.

The Clintons figured out how to accomplish all three things under the foundation banner.

It is left to you, the voter, to decide whether that is ethical.

One footnote - I run my own foundation, named after my parents. I take nothing from the Foundation - no salary, no travel, no expenses.

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton do not take salaries but they certainly have benefitted from the money the foundation has received.

And that's the memo.

There's a New Fox Poll Out on the Race

2016-10-27T03:35:00Z

With just 13 days left until the nation votes for president, the FNC poll says this:

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 44 to 41 -- a tighter race than the last FNC poll, which had it 45 - 39. Johnson and Stein combined get ten percent.

What about the level of strong support?

Clinton 61%, Trump 68%. That's a big plus for the Republican.

Blacks are supporting Clinton 82% to just five for Trump, a disaster if African-Americans turn out in big numbers -- especially in states like Pennsylvania, which Trump needs.

Whites are going for Trump 50% to 36 for Clinton, which is a good sign for Trump in places like Iowa and Nevada.

Women back Clinton over Trump 48 to 38.

But it's the opposite with men; they support Trump 44 to 39 over Clinton.

So you can see it's a polarized country.

The Fox poll is somewhat surprising because it shows the race is much closer than some in the media believe.

Also, Hillary Clinton has not been campaigning all that much, so this might be a wakeup call. Mitt Romney thought he had the race won four years ago and look what happened.

Trump's better showing is because more independent voters are breaking for him.

The Fox poll has it 41 for Trump, just 28 for Clinton. She's down seven points with independents in two weeks, a significant fall.

Finally, the poll asked whether voters had a favorable opinion of the candidates.

Trump clocked in with 42 favorable, 56 unfavorable.

Clinton 45 % favorable, 53% unfavorable.

Talking Points will say it again: Whoever wins on November 8th will be the most unfavorable president-elect in history.

Two new state polls showed up today. In Florida, Bloomberg has Trump up by 2, a statistical tie.

In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton's lead has been cut by five points in the latest Monmouth poll. She now leads Trump by four points in the Live Free or Die state.

But before all you Trump supporters get too happy, a new USA Today poll also out today has Clinton beating Trump by about ten points in a four-way race.

We checked the methodology on this poll and it is similar to the Fox poll, so there's some confusion afoot.

The Gannett Company, which owns USA Today, is generally anti-Trump but Talking Points does not believe the poll is skewed to favor Hillary Clinton.

What all this tells us is that Americans are not very happy with either candidate and that comes through with the trust numbers.

In the Fox survey, 67% of likely voters don't trust Clinton; 62% don't trust Trump.

The fact that Donald Trump is still competing hard and within striking distance if you believe the FNC poll is kind of amazing.

The man has been battered by the media, including some commentators here on Fox News.

Some of that is Trump's own fault, as his past behavior has hurt him and his penchant for airing personal grievances has cost him votes.

But Hillary Clinton simply cannot put him away, no matter what he does.

And that's because the country is in trouble and Secretary Clinton refuses to acknowledge it, even though the polling on disenchantment is clear: 2/3s of Americans are not happy with the direction of America.

In order to secure his support, Hillary Clinton has chosen to uphold the policies of President Obama.

That's tough territory with Obamacare tottering and economic growth at one percent.

Trump is also an amazing campaigner, pounding the pavement in the four states that he needs: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

The guy never sleeps.

He just Tweets.

Talking Points believes that Hillary Clinton is leading in the race and has a big advantage in the Electoral College.

But Trump has regained some momentum, as voters start to seriously consider things like blatant media bias, a botched FBI investigation on the email front, and a swamp in Washington that definitely needs to be drained.

So the election is not a slam-dunk and Mrs. Clinton should understand that.

Her support can erode fast if more WikiLeaks stuff comes out.

As for Trump, nobody on this planet can predict what he will say or do.

But one thing is certain -- if he goes down, he's going down fighting.

And that's the memo.

Is Our Political System Rigged?

2016-10-26T03:34:00Z

With two weeks left in perhaps the nastiest presidential race in history, many Americans just want the whole thing to end.

But Donald Trump has raised the specter of a fixed election, he says the system is rigged.

Bernie Sanders also said that:

NYC, Jan. 5, 2016

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): “We will no longer tolerate an economy and a political system that has been rigged by Wall Street to benefit the wealthiest Americans in this country at the expense of everyone else.”

Senator Sanders putting forth that big money controls voting patterns as well as the marketplace.

Sanders by the way got hosed by his own party because many of the superdelegates were locked in for Hillary long before Sanders started hurting her in the primaries

So that primary system was rigged for sure against Sanders.

Donald Trump sees it a bit differently, believing that the left-leaning media combined with suspect voting patterns is how the system is rigged.

So let's look at the facts:

With more than 100 million Americans voting, it is virtually impossible for the actual vote tally to be rigged.

However a Pew study says that there are serious problems involving voter registration.

Is It Legal? will take a hard look at that in just a few moments.

On the media front there is no question that Americans are not getting objective reporting generally speaking.

That's because so many journalists are committed to the left.

So many Republicans and conservative candidates faced rigged coverage.

Also, there is growing evidence that our justice system has been compromised. And because Hillary Clinton is in the middle of that, a case can be made that the election had been rigged in her favor by investigative authorities.

A very powerful Wall Street Journal editorial today lays it out:

"Evidence keeps turning up suggesting that the FBI probe into [Hillary Clinton's] emails was influenced by political favoritism and double standards."

The latest is the number two man in the FBI, Andrew McCabe.

His wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, received close to $700,000 from a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Dr. McCabe was running for the state senate in Virginia.

A McAuliffe-controlled PAC gave her the money.

At the time Hillary Clinton was being investigated by the FBI and Andrew McCabe was involved in that investigation.

So McCabe should have recused himself.

If your wife is getting $675,000 from one of Hillary Clinton's closest friends, you don't investigate Hillary Clinton.

The appearance of corruption is staggering.

Talking Points is not saying there is corruption, but the optics are awful and FBI Director James Comey had to know that.

If you combine the McCabe stuff with Comey not calling for a grand jury and basically giving Secretary Clinton every benefit of the doubt, again, you have the appearance of impropriety.

So it's no surprise that many Americans, including Trump, believe the system is rigged.

Did I mention Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation?

I mean, come on.

Again, the vote cannot possibly be rigged, and Mr. Trump should accept whatever happens in two weeks unless there is compelling evidence of corruption.

Undermining our electoral system is not a patriotic thing.

But overall if you don't think the federal political and justice system has severe problems, you're living in the Land of Oz.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump Wants You to Listen to Him

2016-10-25T03:08:00Z

On Saturday at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump delivered a speech that promised a contract between him and the American voter.

So let's take a look at it.

The Republican says he will push for term limits on all congressional members.

He will freeze hiring at the federal level.

He will crack down on lobbying.

And he will renegotiate trade deals that he feels are harming America.

So far, nothing too dramatic

But then Mr. Trump upped the ante.

He says he will stop funding sanctuary cities.

He says he will remove two million undocumented immigrants - people he feels are dangerous - and cancel visas from countries that won't take them back.

He repeated that he will suspend immigration from terror prone regions like the Middle East.

In addition, Trump promises middle class families with two children a 35% tax cut.

He says he will spend one trillion dollars on infrastructure over the next 10 years.

He promises to repeal and replace Obamacare.

He says he will build the border wall.

Also, Trump says he will support Kate's Law -- mandatory five-year prison sentences for those who illegally reenter the USA with a felony conviction on their sheet.

Now, most of these promises appeal to Republicans and are abhorrent to Democrats.

So Trump is trying to solidify his base, which has slipped over the past few weeks, while also trying to attract independent voters who are fed up with lax policies for illegal immigration and national security.

The question becomes, did anyone actually hear Trump's Gettysburg speech?

Again, it was given on a Saturday when most Americans are not watching TV and the anti-Trump news media gave it scant attention.

What the media did trumpet was Trump's threat to sue some women who are accusing him of improper conduct.

That got a lot of attention.

Talking Points believes that the election of 2016 has not served voters well.

There has been far too much hysteria, hatred and stupid, partisan ramblings.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have opposite views of how this country should be run.

Anybody voting on November 8th should know exactly what those views are.

Trump's contract should have been widely reported.

And that's the memo.

An Embarrassing Situation at the Al Smith Dinner in New York City Last Night

2016-10-22T03:12:00Z

The dinner is sponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York, primarily to raise money for poor children.

Last night the charity broke a record, raising more than $6 million.

That's the good news.

The bad news is the keynote speakers -- Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump -- were too harsh and they embarrassed Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

No way to spin it; it was not a good evening.

Al Smith was the first Catholic ever to run for president.

He lost to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

His family puts together this charitable event every year.

It's supposed to be a light-hearted night, and four years ago President Obama and Mitt Romney understood that:

Oct. 18, 2012 Al Smith Dinner in NYC

MITT ROMNEY:“As President Obama surveys the Waldorf banquet room with everyone in white tie and finery, you have to wonder what he is thinking. So little time, so much to redistribute. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE).”

((EDIT))

OBAMA: “I'm still making the most of my time in the city. Earlier today, I went shopping at some stores in Midtown. I understand Governor Romney went shopping FOR some stores in Midtown.”

So you can see, the ribbing was gentle.

Last night, it was nasty.

Al Smith dinner last night

TRUMP: “Hillary believes that it's vital to deceive the people by having one public policy -- (BOOING FROM THE CROWD) and a totally different policy in private. That's okay. I don't know who they're angry at Hillary, you or I. For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics. (MORE BOOING)))”

Wow. That stunned the crowd.

So I was expecting Secretary Clinton to seize the moment and be gracious.

That would have helped her. She didn't really need to do much else, other than keep it light. That would have contrasted with Mr. Trump.

But Mrs. Clinton did not do that.

Al Smith dinner last night

CLINTON: “Now, look, I have deep respect for people like Kellyanne Conway. She's working day and night for Donald and because she's a contractor, he's probably not even going to pay her. (GROANS/LAUGHS) (EDIT) (BOOS / LAUGHS) ((EDIT)) Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a "four." (groans/laughs) Maybe a "five" if she loses the torch and tablet and changes her hair. (laughter)”

Now what Trump and Clinton did was more like a roast not an amiable benefit.

Before the speeches began, I was able to see both Trump and Clinton up close -- I was about five feet away from them.

It was clear to me that neither wanted to be at the event.

Understandable; they had to be tired coming off the debate.

It was also clear that they despise each other at a level rarely seen in national politics.

I kind of felt sorry for Cardinal Dolan, a friendly guy who did a great job sitting between the two and trying to keep peace.

While Trump was attacking Clinton, the cardinal was smart enough to divert the secretary by actually talking to her during the businessman's remarks.

It was a deft deflection; all the Cardinal could do.

This incident will pass. It's not anything that will linger, but for me, a voter, I have to question the judgment here.

Both candidates had their scripts written for them. They saw what was happening, yet they chose to go the hard way.

Why?

Again, the evening was to raise money for children in need. That's it.

Judgment is important for a president.

And that's the memo.

The Third and Last Debate

2016-10-21T02:04:00Z

One suggestion here: Put emotion aside for a moment so you can better absorb this debate analysis.

The headline is both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump exposed themselves politically last night.

American voters who are paying attention now know where the candidates stand.

The back and forth on abortion is the best example:

TRUMP: “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that's OK and Hillary can say that that's OK. But it's not OK with me.”

((EDIT))

HILLARY: “I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.”

It is somewhat shocking that Hillary Clinton would support late-term, partial-birth abortion, citing the health of the mother.

As we saw in Kansas and in Pennsylvania, the health of the mother could be anything.

There are corrupt doctors who will abort for money on the most flimsy of physical excuses.

In a humane country the unborn must be protected to some extent. Otherwise, we do not have any moral authority on anything.

Next up illegal immigration:

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “Is that your dream, open borders?”

CLINTON: “Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined.”

Chris Wallace, citing the WikiLeaks hack, showing Secretary Clinton saying to a bunch of Brazilian bankers:

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it …"

So this isn't just about energy; it's about what the E.U. does.

Mrs. Clinton supports people moving freely in this hemisphere as they do in Western Europe.

That is the truth.

Now we devolve and get into how the candidates really feel about each other:

TRUMP: “Look, Putin from everything I see, has no respect for this person.”

CLINTON: “Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

TRUMP: “No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet!”

CLINTON: “It's pretty clear you won't admit –-“

TRUMP: “No, you're the puppet.”

Puppets all over the world are outraged and they have a right to be.

Then things got even worse. Here's Clinton on Trump:

CLINTON: “It's not one thing, it's a pattern, a pattern of divisiveness, a very dark and in many ways, dangerous vision of our country where he incites violence, where he applauds people who are pushing and pulling and punching at his rallies. That is not who America is.”

It is clear Hillary Clinton despises Trump and vice versa.

TRUMP: “She shouldn't be allowed to run. It's crooked -- she's -- she's guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run. And just in that respect, I say it's rigged, because she should never...”

WALLACE: “But –“

TRUMP: “Chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things.”

Finally, Donald Trump made a tactical mistake by continuing to suggest the election may be rigged.

That may play well with Trump's base, but he needs to win over independents and people who are skeptical of him:

WALLACE: “I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely -- sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?”

TRUMP: “I will look at it at the time.”

Now that statement dominated news headlines today, overriding all the political points last night, giving the media another hammer to pound trump into pudding.

Talking Points does not understand why Mr. Trump does not understand that stuff like that hurts him.

He clarified today in Ohio:

TRUMP, today: “Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.”

Summing up, nobody won the debate, so Hillary Clinton will likely maintain her substantial lead.\

And that's the memo.

The Debate Topics

2016-10-20T03:42:00Z

Our pal Chris Wallace has selected six areas of questioning for the spectacle in Vegas tonight.

So let's run them down and analyze who has the advantage.

First, debt and entitlements.

Here both Clinton and Trump have problems.

For example, in order to make America great again, Trump has promised to rebuild the military, which will take a massive amount of tax money.

But Trump also says he'll cut taxes and that would slash money going to the federal government, at least until the economy picks up.

Thus, the debt would get bigger, at least in the short term.

So Donald Trump will have to be precise with his words because Wallace will surely hone in on the spending issue.

On the Clinton front, she pretty much supports the spending vision of President Obama, who has run up more debt than any other president in history and it's not even close.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton would like the feds to run the entire healthcare system. I don't think she will say that, but certainly based on her history that's her goal.

Having the feds pay all the medical bills would be a colossal entitlement and debt driver.

So both candidates will be dancing on this one.

Second topic, immigration.

Trump won the nomination largely on his tough guy approach. He has to echo that tonight while at the same time showing some humanity. He needs to emphasize the benefits of ending immigration chaos.

It will not be enough for Trump to say the Mexicans will pay for the border wall. He may believe that, but it’s now become a cliché unless he provides specifics.

On the other side with the WikiLeaks hack showing Hillary Clinton dreaming of open borders, that could make the issue a tough one for her.

Open borders would pretty much destroy our society as tens of millions of poor people south of the border would pour in here.

I mean wouldn't you if you were living in a Honduran shack?

The third issue is the Supreme Court.

Both candidates will be ready with names of judges the public doesn't know.

Chris Wallace will most likely ask both to cite some court decisions they feel strongly about.

Trump better be ready for that.

Then it's on to foreign hot spots. It will be interesting to see how aggressive Wallace is with Clinton on that subject. She has some problems there.

With the battle raging against ISIS in Mosul, Mrs. Clinton will be hard-pressed to defend President Obama removing all U.S. troops from Iraq while she was secretary of state.

Trump, of course, has no record to defend but he should be more specific about his overseas vision, not just repeating the Iran nuke deal is bad over and over.

The fifth topic is the economy. Here it's mostly B.S. It's impossible for Americans to know who will improve the economy.

What Talking Points can tell you is that Trump believes in cutting taxes to stimulate growth, much like Ronald Reagan.

While Clinton believes that big government projects should create momentum in the economy.

This topic is endless, it just goes round and round and round.

Finally Chris Wallace will ask about the character issue -- are you fit to run the country?

Here things could get very nasty on both sides.

Wallace will have his hands full with that.

And believe me, the headlines tomorrow will be about the character issue.

And that's the memo.

What Is Wrong with America?

2016-10-19T03:19:00Z

This evening we will set up the final presidential debate in Las Vegas tomorrow night.

In just a few moments, we'll show you why Donald Trump has to win decisively in Vegas or he will lose the general election.

Mr. Trump should absolutely capitalize on what is wrong in America because there's no doubt we are in trouble here.

First, the economy growth is less than two percent.

That means that well-paying jobs are scarce and workers have to take what's available.

The unemployment rate doesn't mean much when new jobs come with low salaries.

With all the resources we have in the USA, growth should be far more than two percent.

On the immigration front, after all these years, people still can walk across our southern border, establish residency illegally in this country and then have the government actually pay them entitlements.

Does that sound like a fair system to you?

When Kate's Law was destroyed by the awful Senator Harry Reid, critical mass was reached.

All that law would have done was require a mandatory prison sentence for a violent illegal alien felon who defied deportation.

Reid and other Democrats in the Senate killed it.

Nov. 4, 2015

HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: “The new mandatory minimum sentences this bill would create would have a crippling financial effect – and that’s an understatement - with no evidence that they would deter future violations of law. This legislation would require about 20,000 new prison beds, 20,000; 12 new prisons that cost over $3 billion. This is yet another attack on the immigrant community.”

So let me get this straight, to punish violent illegal alien felons who cross back into this country after being deported is an attack on the immigrant community?

And the prison stuff is just untrue - the numbers of criminal aliens would fall drastically once they knew they'd be harshly punished just for standing on American soil.

The kind of insanity that Reid puts forth is why many Americans are so angry.

How about crime in the poor precincts?

Last night in Chicago, 12 people were shot including a 13-year-old boy.

That brings the total number of Americans shot in the Windy City, this year alone, to 3,476.

Chicago is more dangerous than Kabul, Afghanistan.

And it is clear that Democratic Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Republican Governor Bruce Rauner will not stop the violence in poor black Chicago neighborhoods.

Will not stop it.

That is true racism for you PC people.

Let's go overseas. A major battle is underway right now to remove ISIS from Iraq's second largest city, Mosul.

The hard truth is, ISIS should never have been allowed to take Mosul, or any other Iraqi territory, in the first place.

The only reason that happened was a huge foreign policy blunder by President Obama.

As you may know, he withdrew all American troops from Iraq in 2011.

Without American forces there, ISIS grew in power.

And who was the architect of that policy? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Finally, what about our national spirit?

One word - terrible.

With all the muck, WikiLeaks, media bias and chaos surrounding the presidential campaign, Americans are disgusted.

We are a divided nation. Most folks are voting against a candidate rather than for one and the politically correct culture that is being imposed on us by the media is rapidly destroying traditional values.

All religious Americans know that.

So it seems to me that the challenger in the presidential race -- Trump -- should have an advantage because Secretary Clinton is embracing the policies of Mr. Obama.

But it has not turned out that way.

And Trump is down to his last chance tomorrow night.

And that's the memo.

Where the Campaign Stands Right Now

2016-10-18T03:38:00Z

ABC News poll -- good news for Donald Trump, has him just four points behind Hillary Clinton.

NBC News poll -- not so good news, he's down by 11 in that one.

CBS News poll, Trump down by nine.

Talking Points believes the Fox News poll, which has Trump down by seven, is most likely the most accurate.

But with three weeks remaining the question is, can that gap can be closed?

There are a few things that Donald Trump must do.

First, put aside the feuding. It gets him nowhere with voters to take on people like Paul Ryan.

Second, while he must defend himself against charges he believes are scurrilous, he should quickly dispatch those charges and hone in on three themes.

They are a stagnant economy, illegal immigration and chaos overseas.

Also, with the WikiLeaks stuff, Mr. Trump has plenty of ammo for Wednesday night's debate.

As for Hillary Clinton, she is off the campaign trail this week resting up for the debate in Las Vegas.

That's smart. She's ahead, but she can't sit on her lead if the debate is won by Donald Trump.

If the secretary dominates on Wednesday night, she's in.

But if Trump hammers her, Mrs. Clinton will have to compete.

Her best strategy in Vegas is to mostly ignore Trump and talk directly to the voters, trying to convince them that she is not corrupt.

Now the big picture.

It all pretty much comes down to four states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Trump needs to take three of those four and win the West -- that is Nevada, Colorado and the rest of the red states out there.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton is better positioned right now, but again, things change fast in this terrible campaign.

I say terrible because it's just one personal attack after another on both sides.

And that has weakened both Trump and Clinton.

BOB WOODWARD, WASHINGTON POST: “I think the question becomes for her and for voters: Is she going to be able to govern? You talk to lots of people who are her supporters, and they say, you know, she may be elected, but she will be a weak president. And part of this is she's got to face - this isn't just about Trump, it's about her.”

The polls show many Americans, perhaps most, are voting against rather than for one of the candidates.

First time in my life that has happened.

And that's the memo.

Sad Times for the American Voter

2016-10-13T03:33:00Z

No matter who wins the election, there will be little joy.

Both Clinton and Trump would enter the White House under dark clouds, they would be the most unpopular president-elects in history.

Talking Points believes most Americans simply want the tawdry campaign to end. It's that terrible for the country.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that more women are emerging to hammer Trump.

Piling on is now an American sport.

And like the NFL games, the news media has set up programs where so-called experts sit around for hours offering gross speculation about things they could not possibly know anything about.

In America today, all accusations are convictions.

Therefore both Trump and Clinton, who have extremely controversial resumes, will be battered without mercy right up to Election Day.

WikiLeaks's apparently has thousands of emails left to drop on Clinton.

Expect a torrent of personal accusations against Trump.

The result: a diminished country.

We the people do not deserve this, but there is little we can do about it.

Clinton and Trump won the nominations, that is our system. Both have dubious histories but voters did not seem to care.

People ask me all the time, where are the inspirational leaders like the Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan?

The answer to the question is that most decent people don't want to be torn apart by Internet guttersnipes and a press that celebrates scandal, condoning contrived or even dishonest attacks.

Thus, many good leaders simply sit it out.

By the way there are no journalistic standards anymore, as the WikiLeak hackers have demonstrated.

The cold truth is our political system has devolved into a chaotic circus where candidates with the most money usually win.

Summing up, with no privacy in the country anymore with little restraint in the media with millions of Americans more interested in texting and social media than actually experiencing life, we have now come to a point in history that would give solace to Nero.

The next president of the United States will either be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

As Cronkite once said, that's the way it is.

And that's the memo.

How Evangelical Christians Will Vote on November 8th

2016-10-12T02:34:00Z

On Saturday Pastor James Macdonald, a member of Donald Trump's Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, wrote an email saying he has had enough of Mr. Trump and is withdrawing support.

That off the Access Hollywood tape revelation.

Now it is certainly true that Mr. Trump's vulgar comments have disturbed many Americans, not just religious ones.

But the debate is very intense in theological circles.

That's because the Democrats are the party of secularism.

They want to impose taxpayer-funded abortion, no limits on the abortion procedure, and generally take a dim view of any public displays concerning religion.

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, you can bet that she will appoint a secular-liberal judge to the Supreme Court.

So religious Americans have a stark choice -- rejecting a man with a dubious past on some social issues, including the treatment of women.

Or supporting that man, Donald Trump, because he would uphold traditional religious tenets in the political arena.

Again, a very difficult issue for Americans who hold sincere religious beliefs.

So what to do?

Talking Points cannot tell you, it all has to do with conscience, what you believe is the greater good.

As in every election, there is no perfect candidate. Both Clinton and Trump are flawed individuals, as are we all.

No one can tell you who to vote for, that would be insulting.

But I can tell you this. If Donald Trump loses the support of religious Americans, he will surely lose the election.

And that's the memo.

The Second Debate, Who Won?

2016-10-11T03:32:00Z

There was high drama last night because Donald Trump was on the ropes.

The vulgar tape and the wall-to-wall reporting of it had the Republican candidate in a very bad place.

But Trump somehow against all odds won the debate.

He won because Secretary Clinton could not knock him out and after the first 30 minutes Trump went on offense, regaining at least some momentum.

Here's how it went down.

The debate opened with no handshake.

Then Secretary Clinton fired the first round:

CLINTON: "What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn't represent who he is. But I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. ((EDIT)) But it's not only women, and it's not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others."

Trump answered with a strategy he has used before.

TRUMP: "Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off."

The story here is that in 1975 an Arkansas judge appointed Hillary Clinton to represent accused child-rapist Thomas Taylor.

Counselor Clinton was successful in raising doubt and Taylor pled out to unlawful fondling, serving just one year in jail.

The victim Kathy Shelton appeared with Trump in a press conference prior to the debate saying the way Mrs. Clinton treated her when she was 12 damaged her for life.

Trump then pounded home the theme that Mrs. Clinton's past record makes her a hypocrite on the woman abuse issue:

TRUMP: "When Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth."

Secretary Clinton jumped on that, saying that Trump is never contrite.

CLINTON: "He never apologizes for anything to anyone. He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the Gold Star family whose son, Captain Khan, died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion. ((EDIT)) And he never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America. He owes the president an apology."

Mr. Trump seized upon the Obama reference to lob this grenade:

TRUMP: "Michelle Obama. I've gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I've gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I've ever seen of Michelle Obama talking about you, Hillary."

That reference is to the Clinton-Obama primary race in 2008 when Mrs. Obama said this:

MICHELLE OBAMA, 2007: "One of the things, the important aspects of this race, is role-modeling what good families should look like. And my view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. Can't do it."

So after about 30 minutes of personal attacks, Trump was still standing a win for him.

Then came more personal attacks:

TRUMP: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we're going to have a special prosecutor."

((EDIT))

CLINTON: "It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country."

TRUMP: "Because you'd be in jail."

That quip angered some on the left.

A CNN reporter compared it to something Hitler and Stalin might say, a bit hysterical to say the least.

After one hour it is was obvious that Donald Trump had done enough to survive to live to fight another day.

It's not that Hillary Clinton did anything poorly but she has a tough road with the chaos overseas, the impending collapse of Obamacare, the email fiasco and her attachment to Barack Obama's policies.

With about two-thirds of Americans believing the country is going in the wrong direction, Secretary Clinton is a soft target on policy:

TRUMP: "If she's president of the United States, nothing's going to happen. It's just going to be talk."

But Mrs. Clinton does have a record in Congress which she pointed out:

CLINTON: "Four hundred pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight years. I worked very hard and was very proud to be re-elected in New York by an even bigger margin than I had been elected the first time."

As the debate drew to a close, two things were apparent to fair-minded people.

Hillary Clinton did not hurt herself and will remain the front-runner.

But Donald Trump in a very difficult spot was able to stand his ground, defend himself and make some policy points that resonated.

He's still in it, and that in itself is a major victory for him.

And that's the memo.

Will a Major Scandal Erupt in the Department of Justice?

2016-10-07T00:24:00Z

Many Americans, including this one, now believe the fix was in regarding investigations into the IRS hammering some right-wing groups and the Clinton email fiasco.

Evidence is mounting that the FBI did not behave properly while looking at Secretary Clinton and her staff.

There are two more articles about that today in the Wall Street Journal.

The crux of the matter is this:

House Judiciary Committee Sept. 28, 2016

REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): “Doesn't it concern you as an investigator that your chiefs in the Justice Department decided to become an immunity producing machine for many people who would have been very key witnesses should there have been a prosecution?”

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: “I don't think of it that way. Doesn't strike me there was a lot of immunity issued in this case.”

Director Comey's statement is strange to say the least.

Sept. 28, The O’Reilly Factor

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: “These five immunity deals are very baffling. I mean, it's like playing a game of tag and nobody is it. It makes for a rather boring game when you give out immunity to people like Cheryl Mills. And her immunity deal just -- I find it perplexing.”

Cheryl Mills is Hillary Clinton's lawyer and was one of her top advisers at the State Department.

Now we don't try cases on TV here but the FBI and the Justice Department have a lot of explaining to do on the email front.

Same thing happened in 2013 when an IRS boss -- Lois Lerner -- was accused of illegally targeting conservative groups for audits.

Lerner took the Fifth in the case and was never really held legally accountable.

Something then Attorney General Eric Holder refused to explain.

House Judiciary Committee, April 8, 2014

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): “When did you interview Lois Lerner? Where did the interview take place? Who was the personnel who conducted the interview at the Justice Department? And at any time during the interview did she exercise her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions?”

ERIC HOLDER, THEN-ATTORNEY GENERAL: “Because this is an ongoing matter, I'm not going to answer those questions.”

JORDAN: “You can't answer. Well, let me ask you this. Did you interview Lois Lerner?”

HOLDER: “As I said, this is an ongoing matter and I'm not going to comment on an ongoing matter.”

Mr. Holder never clarified the situation to the American people, something he was honor bound to do.

But President Obama did make a statement when I asked him about the IRS deal:

Feb. 2, 2014

O'REILLY: “You're saying no corruption?”

OBAMA: “No.”

O'REILLY: “None?”

OBAMA: “No. There were some -- there were some bone-headed decisions...”

O'REILLY: “Bone-headed decisions ...”

OBAMA: “-- out of -- out of a local office ...”

O'REILLY: “But no mass corruption?”

OBAMA: “Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.”

O’REILLY: “Okay.”

Talking Points believes there is now enough evidence of corruption in the Justice Department that an independent prosecutor should be appointed.

We all know that Mr. Obama will not do that.

But he should.

We need honest government.

And that's the memo.

The Vice Presidential Debate and the Election

2016-10-06T03:40:00Z

Well it was livelier than I thought it would be. Governor Pence and Senator Kaine brought a fairly high-energy presentation and some very pointed attacks.

Mr. Pence won the debate on points largely because he seemed more presidential and was more in control.

According to ABC News, Senator Kaine interrupted Pence 70 times.

The governor interrupted the senator 40 times.

But there is no question that Mr. Kaine's demeanor hurt him.

PENCE: "He's employed tens of thousands of people in this country -"

KAINE: "(interrupts) And paid few taxes and lost a billion a year."

((EDIT))

PENCE: "She had a private server ..."

KAINE: "Now, I get to weigh in. Now, let me just say this..."

((EDIT))

PENCE: "She had a Clinton Foundation accepting contributions from foreign governments and foreign -"

KAINE: "You are Donald Trump's apprentice. Let me talk about this..."

PENCE: "Senator, I think I'm still on my time."

KAINE: "Well, I think -- isn't this a discussion?"

It was a discussion that got out of control and the moderator -- CBS News woman Elaine Quijano -- had a hard time containing things.

PENCE: "Senator -"

QUIJANO: "Alright gentleman -"

PENCE: "He's going to release his tax returns when the audit is over ..."

QUIJANO: "... I need to ask you about Social Security ..."

KAINE: "Richard Nixon released tax returns when he was under audit."

QUIJANO: "Gentlemen. Gentleman."

KAINE: "If you can't meet Nixon's standard ..."

QUIJANO: "The people at home cannot understand either one of you when you speak over each other."

What Ms. Quijano should have done is call a time out and explain to both candidates that only one speaks at a time.

She should have done this firmly -- that would have embarrassed the guys and it would have been an appropriate move.

The problem for both Kaine and Pence was that they had to defend mis-statements by their bosses.

I say mis-statements because both Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump have had to walk back stuff they've said.

No surprise when candidates speak as much as these two. There will be mistakes.

Also, positions will be clarified.

But that doesn't seem to matter when politics are involved:

KAINE: "When Donald Trump says women should be punished or Mexicans are rapists and criminals ..."

PENCE: "I'm telling you ..."

KAINE: "... or John McCain is not a hero, he is showing you who he is."

PENCE: "Senator, you've whipped out that Mexican thing again. He - look ..."

KAINE: "Can you defend it?"

PENCE: "There are criminal aliens in this country, Tim, who have come into this country illegally who are perpetrating violence and taking American lives."

KAINE: "You want to -- you want to use a big broad brush against Mexicans on that?"

PENCE: "He also said and many of them are good people. You keep leaving that out of your quote."

Too much time was spent going back and forth about what Clinton and Trump have said in the past.

PENCE: "If Donald Trump had said all of the things that you've said he said in the way you said he said them, he still wouldn't have a fraction of the insults that Hillary Clinton leveled when she said that half of our supporters were a basket of deplorables."

Those kinds of attacks take away from issues.

And it is here that Pence made some strong points.

PENCE: "Iraq has been overrun by ISIS, because Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate ..."

KAINE: "Well, if you want to put more American troops in Iraq, you can propose that."

PENCE: "Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate a status of forces agreement..."

KAINE: "No, that is incorrect. That's incorrect."

PENCE: "And so we removed -- we removed all of our ..."

QUIJANO: "Gentlemen, we'll get to ..."

PENCE: "... troops from Iraq, and ISIS was able to be conjured up in that vacuum."

KAINE: "But I'd like to correct ..."

PENCE: "... and overrun vast areas of Iraq."

Despite Kaine's interruptions, what Pence said is true.

The Obama administration with Hillary Clinton as secretary of state failed to negotiate a deal that would have kept American troops in Iraq.

So when Mr. Obama pulled the troops out of there, ISIS quickly took advantage, leading to the catastrophe we have today.

Senator Kaine on the other hand did not seem interested in debating that reality.

He constantly went back to the personality game.

KAINE: "These guys have praised Vladimir Putin as a great leader. How can they defend that? (EDIT) He loves dictators. He's got kind of a personal Mount Rushmore -- Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Muammar Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein."

It was only on the subject of abortion where there was some clarity.

Governor Pence is against most abortions, he is solidly pro-life.

Senator Kaine, who is Catholic, says he is personally against abortion but supports changing laws to make the procedure easier and to have all American taxpayers fund abortions.

PENCE: "I have appreciated the fact that you've supported the Hyde amendment, which bans the use of taxpayer funding for abortion in the past, but that's not Hillary Clinton's view. People need to understand, we can come together as a nation. We can create a culture of life. More and more young people today are embracing life because we know we are -- we're better for it."

((EDIT))

KAINE: "We can encourage people to support life. Of course we can. But why don't you trust women? Why doesn't Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves?"

Talking Points would like to make a personal comment to senator Karine. How can you create a culture of life when you support abortion on demand for any reason at any time?

That permissive policy would do grave damage to the unborn.

Now the fact that Governor Pence was credible helped Donald Trump because he selected the governor.

But there are reports today that some in the Trump camp were disappointed that Governor Pence did not directly refute stuff like this.

KAINE: "I just want to talk about the tone that's set from the top. Donald Trump during his campaign has called Mexicans rapists and criminals. He's called women slobs, pigs, dogs, disgusting. I don't like saying that in front of my wife and my mother."

Talking Points believes that kind of personal attack made Kaine look bad.

And Pence was wise to speak in support of Trump's policies and stay away from the swamp.

Please hear this clearly: Nobody wins in the swamp, nobody.

And Pence is smart enough to know that.

Summing up, many Trump supporters are feeling good today. Their VP candidate came across as smart, responsible and articulate.

On the Democratic side Tim Kaine proved himself to be an aggressive campaigner but did not show the gravitas that Pence did.

And that's the memo.

Will the VP Debate Influence the Vote?

2016-10-05T03:58:00Z

The answer is ... No.

Goodnight, everyone.

Not really. I'm here for the hour, but we always tell you the truth and the truth is that the American people will not change their votes based upon anything Pence and Kaine might say this evening.

The two presidential candidates are so much larger than life that it all depends on them, not their seconds.

In my lifetime, only Sarah Palin brought enough charisma to benefit her ticket.

Sept. 3, 2008

PALIN: “I love those hockey moms. You know what they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is? Lipstick.”

But as you'll remember, Governor Palin ran into trouble with her frame of reference, how much she knew about the world.

She did, however, put a scare into the Democratic Party and initially helped John McCain.

Other than that, the VP candidates have been pretty much used as surrogates. Does anyone remember what Joe Biden said to Paul Ryan or vice versa four years ago?

So tonight's debate will be interesting because of the joust -- who is quicker on the draw -- but it will not influence the vote.

So all eyes will turn to Sunday night, round two between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Polling this week is not good news for the Trump campaign. Many Americans apparently believe that Hillary Clinton won the first debate and she has gained in most of the polling.

Also, Donald Trump remains on defense. While the Miss Universe thing is going away, the tax deal is big.

Yesterday in Colorado Trump defended his big tax write-off in 1995.

TRUMP: “As a major real estate developer in this country and throughout the world, I face enormous taxes – city taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, employee taxes, federal taxes, VAT taxes in different countries. It’s my job always to minimize the overall tax burden to the greatest extent possible, which allows me to reinvest in neighborhood workers, building amazing structures all over the place and fuels tremendous growth in communities around the United States.”

Now that makes sense. As we reported last night, corporations take big losses all the time and that's what Mr. Trump did.

The fact that he turned his companies around to make big profits is to his credit.

But we all know that the two debate moderators -- Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper -- as well as Hillary Clinton herself will try to paint Trump as a greed head who doesn't care about his country.

That presents an interesting challenge to the candidate.

Trump must calmly, I repeat calmly, state his case, that his economic vision on taxes and everything else will benefit the country.

If Donald Trump goes on the defensive and lashes out in any way at all, he will lose the second debate.

And if that happens, well I think we all know how the November vote will turn out.

But Mr. Trump is a talented communicator, so it would be foolish for anyone to count him out at this point.

But he needs a big win on Sunday, not just holding his own.

If that happens, the polls will turn around because Hillary Clinton still has not defined herself to independent American voters.

And that's the memo.

Voting Against a Potential President

2016-10-04T03:10:00Z

The latest Fox News poll has an intriguing question.

What is your biggest motivation voting for president this year?

Fear the other candidate wins, 57%.

Enthusiasm for a candidate, 39%.

Well that pretty much says it all.

The majority of American voters are voting against, rather than for Clinton or Trump.

So why is that happening?

Let's take Donald Trump first.

His problems with voters originate in two areas.

First, his business background. It is not compatible with politics.

Business people like Trump -- and to some extent Mitt Romney before him -- maximize profits and promote their products sometimes in flamboyant ways.

Both of those things can be exploited politically.

For example, when The New York Times reports that Donald Trump took a $900 million plus tax loss back in 1995, the paper does so in an accusatory way.

But almost any corporation would do the same thing.

If some of your enterprises tank, you are allowed to deduct the losses against future gains.

That is a hallmark of our tax system in America.

So of course Trump took advantage of his faltering casinos and wrote-off gigantic losses.

Fair-minded people can look at it two ways: That Trump is gaming the system because he is not upfront about his tax returns.

Or that he is to be admired for taking losses and then turning his companies around.

As a responsible voter, how you see it is up to you.

But there is no question that mr. Trump is getting hammered in the court of public opinion because his opposition is labeling him a business failure and a greed head.

Whether Mr. Trump can overcome The New York Times report remains to be seen.

It's the same on the woman issue.

This whole Alicia Machado deal is basically a contrived issue.

Ms. Machado despises Donald Trump and signed on with the Clinton campaign to disparage him.

For his part, Trump did what he always does: He took a business situation -- the Miss Universe pageant, which he owned -- and tried to maximize publicity.

So when Ms. Machado gained some weight, Trump exploited it by taking her to the gym and getting media attention.

If you know anything about Donald Trump, that's what he does -- gets attention, sometimes crass attention.

So Trump is vulnerable because of his business background and his high-profile marketing strategies.

And the Clinton campaign is using that to brand him a misogynist.

Of course, the press is playing along.

Yesterday, NBC's Chuck Todd tried to lay a trap for Rudy Giuliani about the woman issue and the Clinton marriage:

Meet the Press, Oct. 2

CHUCK TODD, MODERATOR OF NBC’S “MEET THE PRESS”: “She was wrong to stand by her husband?”

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FMR. MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY : “No, she was wrong to attack the victim. The woman who says—“

TODD: “Are you the right person to level this charge?”

GIULIANI: “Yeah. I'm the right person to level this charge, because I've never made such a charge, and I've prosecuted people who've committed rape.”

TODD: “But your past, you have your own infidelities, sir.”

GIULIANI: “Well, everybody does. And I'm a Roman Catholic, and I confess those things to my priest. But I've never-- I've never ever attacked someone who's been the victim—“

TODD: “Okay.”

GIULIANI: “Who's been the victim of sexual abuse. Not only that, I've put people in jail who've been the victim of sexual abuse.”

TODD: “Well, all right. Well—“

GIULIANI: “And I've never participated in that. And I think your bringing up my personal life really is kind of irrelevant to what Hillary Clinton did. She's running for president, I'm not.”

Now Mr. Todd was totally out of line trying to set up Mr. Giuliani that way.

He owes the mayor an apology.

But the central issue is that Donald Trump feels he needs to discuss the Clinton marriage.

Manheim, PA rally, Oct. 1

TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself. I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you wanna know the truth. (EDIT FOR APPLAUSE) And really folks - why should she be right?”

Talking Points believes statements like that are a mistake, that American voters, especially women, do not like the personal stuff.

They don't like it when Rudy Giuliani is attacked, they don't like it when presidential candidates descend into the mud.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton attacks Donald Trump on the woman issue, he has a right to defend himself but he should keep it pithy.

Any disparagement of any woman by Trump will drive his numbers down with women voters.

And Trump needs more of them if he wants to win the White House.

Now let's take a look at why Hillary Clinton is not very popular with the public.

Her main problem stems from the perception that she does not tell the truth.

There is little Mrs. Clinton can do about that. Benghazi, the emails, Whitewater -- all that stuff is not going away.

The secretary is smart to play down those questions. She will never win on that front; going on the defensive is not a winning political strategy.

But in order to get away from the perception that she is not an honest person, she must convince Americans that she is looking out for them, that her political vision will be beneficial to the country.

To do that, Mrs. Clinton must talk directly to the folks, but she avoids most interviews --perhaps because of the email and Benghazi stuff.

So it's a catch-22 -- you can Google that if you don't know what it means.

But Hillary Clinton has a larger problem, and that is a kind of personality quirk.

We saw that the day after last week's debate.

Raleigh, North Carolina, Sept. 27

HILLARY: “Did anybody see that debate last night? (cheers) Ooooh yes!”

Now that looked an awful lot like gloating, which politicians can do to some extent but it doesn't really help in the personality arena.

Fox News Sunday, October 2

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: “That clip shows this kind of self-congratulation, this self-satisfaction. And as we know, and as we try to teach our children, when you win something, don't gloat. Humility works. And the problem for her is this feeds the notion that she's in this for herself.”

Mr. Woodward nails it -- if Hillary Clinton wants to be president, she needs to back away from it's all about me and make it all about us.

Again, the only way to do that is to speak directly to the folks.

Summing up, right now we have two presidential candidates who worry a lot of voters.

If the election were held tomorrow, Talking Points believes the turn out would be low.

And many of those who did vote would be voting against, rather than for one of the candidates.

There is still time for Clinton and Trump to get a more positive policy-oriented message to the voters.

But both of them have to stop making mistakes, stop mudslinging and stop being self-centered.

Finally, Donald Trump is a man who does not take slights well.

I can sympathize, I'm the same way.

But over the years I have learned to ignore most of the smears that come my way because I have far more important things to do on The Factor than to deal with personal slights.

That lesson did not come easy to me, and I wasted some of your time talking about stupid stuff that I should've ignored.

But today I let a lot of stuff go and Donald Trump might consider doing the same thing.

His supporters like his policy vision; they don't care about the personal stuff.

In the end, Mr. Trump will have to win over more supporters and policy is the way to do it.

And that's the memo.

President Obama's Last Stand

2016-09-30T04:19:00Z

Just 40 days left before Barack Obama becomes a lame-duck president.

So last night he participated in a town hall among friendly folks.

The president dealt with many issues but two of them caught my attention.

First, why he doesn't say the words “Islamic terrorism:”

OBAMA: “I learned from listening to some of these Muslim families both in the United States and overseas is that when you start calling these organizations Islamic terrorists, the way it's heard, the way it's received by our friends and allies around the world is that somehow Islam is terroristic. And that then makes them feel as if they're under attack.”

With all due respect to Mr. Obama, that is a naive view of the world.

Everybody knows most Muslims are not violent people.

However, many Muslim nations contribute heavily to terrorism.

Iran, for example, is a rogue nation that actively helps terrorists kill people.

Pakistan allows the worst jihadists to live on its soil and plot their murder scenarios.

Saudi Arabia allows radical Muslim preachers to indoctrinate children with hatred against non-Muslims.

And in Africa there are a number of governments that allow Muslim killers free rein.

So the jihad is not an aberration. It is a well financed, well organized movement that has gained support among a significant number of Muslims worldwide.

That is the truth.

By being soft on the jihad by failing to confront the worldwide evil, President Obama has allowed ISIS and other groups to gain strength.

It is a fact that some young Muslims believe the jihad is winning because it has not been crushed as it should have been.

There is no question that Barack Obama is sympathetic to the peaceful Muslim world and that is not a bad thing. We need allies like Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.

Those countries help us and we should not alienate them.

But any rational Muslim is not going to take offense at the words Islamic terrorism.

Why? Because that would be irrational.

While visiting France this summer, I saw first hand how the French people have generally turned against all Muslims. You can hear and feel the bitterness over the ISIS attacks.

Also because of mass-Muslim immigration into France.

Some of that bitterness is not rational and could be mitigated if the French Muslim population would outwardly condemn the jihad.

That has not happened to any meaningful extent.

And all over the world many Muslims stay silent.

President Obama's primary obligation is to protect the American people.

A strong argument can be made that he has not done that effectively.

The enemy needs to be defined, Mr. President, and if some people get their feelings hurt that's too bad.

The second thing that caught my attention in the town hall was disrespect toward the USA.

As you know, some Americans believe this is not a noble country -- that blacks, for example, are treated harshly by the system simply because of their skin color.

The football player Colin Kaepernick believes that and so he is disrespecting the National Anthem.

A few other athletes have followed him and some kids have, as well.

Mr. Obama addressed it:

OBAMA: “So I want Mr. Kaepernick and others who are on a knee, I want them to listen to the pain that that may cause somebody who, for example, had a spouse or a child who was killed in combat, and why it hurts them to see somebody not standing. But I also want people to think about the pain that he may be expressing about somebody who's lost a loved one that they think was unfairly shot.”

That is a false equivalence that Mr. Obama is putting forth.

Issues of police shootings, for example, should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

No system is perfect. There are bad law enforcement officers in this country and that should not be tolerated.

However, the overriding nobility of America far outweighs individual bias and terrible mistakes on the part of a few police officers.

Colin Kaepernick and others who despise their own country do have a right to vent.

But by taking things out of context by diminishing the proud history of this country in freeing millions of people all over the world, they insult us.

President Obama should not equate personal disenchantment with mistakes, even fatal ones, when it comes to respecting the legacy of this country.

Mr. Obama did redeem himself somewhat by saying this:

OBAMA: “I believe that us honoring our flag and our anthem is part of what binds us together as a nation. And I think that for me, for my family, for those who work in the White House, we recognize what it means to us, but also what it means to the men and women who are fighting on our behalf.”

The mark of strong leadership is to take a stand.

Mr. Obama understands that diminishing America is a bad choice, but somehow he always equivocates and does not make his points with certainty.

There are not two sides to this story.

America is a noble nation, period.

Those who dissent have to be tolerated, but we don't have to applaud that dissent if it is misguided and uninformed.

As for the jihad, it should have been defeated a long time ago.

A strong leader would have done that.

Or am I wrong?

And that's the memo.

No Spin Analysis of Monday Night's Presidential Debate

2016-09-28T02:40:00Z

Please keep in mind that many folks only hear what they want to hear and that's why most of the post-debate comments last night were a colossal waste of time.

Partisans will never see things for what they are -- it will always be what satisfies the agenda.

So many opinions on the debate are subject to rooting interest and to expunge that you actually have to step back and think, putting aside the small machine attached to your hand.

Talking Points has done that and here is my assessment.

Neither candidate broke out last night.

The American people did not learn very much because both candidates stuck to what they have said in the past.

There were few challenging questions put forth, only general queries except for the birther and tax return stuff designed to hammer Mr. Trump.

Let's begin with demeanor, very important to Donald Trump.

At the start he was credible, speaking about the need to stimulate the private sector so jobs are created:

TRUMP: “Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That's going to be a job creator like we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It's going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

Strong point by Trump, as growth in America is awful and this country needs an economic jolt.

But as the debate wore on, Mr. Trump began to get a bit testy:

TRUMP: “No, no, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do.”

CLINTON: “No, we're not. No, we're not.”

TRUMP: “See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting -- no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”

That emotional response led to a mistake, as ISIS has only been around for a few years.

Wasn't a big mistake, but it was noted.

For her part Secretary Clinton stuck to the progressive script:

CLINTON: “I've heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you're under. So let's have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let's be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college. How are we going to do it? We're going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.”

That fair-share line offends many Americans who are not wealthy.

Yes, there are some fat cats who dodge taxes but this cat -- the guy who's talking to you right now -- pays an enormous amount of money in taxes.

And so do millions of other successful Americans, so that fair-share myth is beyond annoying.

It is quite clear that Mrs. Clinton will govern by expanding the federal government, perhaps even more than President Obama has.

As for demeanor, the secretary seemed somewhat smug while not speaking.

She seems very self-satisfied, a condition that carried over today in North Carolina:

CLINTON: “Did anybody see that debate last night? [Hillary laughs, the crowd cheers]. Ohhhh yes. One down, two to go.”

To be fair politicians must show confidence, but it is wise to avoid the gloating factor.

Now one of the most interesting parts of the debate was the racial aspect framed around stop and frisk:

TRUMP: “We have to bring back law and order. Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down.”

((EDIT))

CLINTON: “We do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective.”

The truth is that aggressive police monitoring in high-crime neighborhoods does cut violent crime, especially where guns are used.

But stop-and-frisk also does alienate some law-abiding folks who are subject to intrusion.

However, there is no question that permissive local governments run by Democrats have failed dismally in places like Chicago and Baltimore.

Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to ask Mrs. Clinton to repudiate those administrations.

Trump also missed chances to pin the secretary down on sanctuary cities, violent protests, disrespect for the anthem and vouchers to improve poor public school performance by instilling competition.

Why Trump did not bring it on those emotional issues is a mystery.

So technically Hillary Clinton won the debate on points because she was able to keep Trump on the defensive.

She used three effective grenades: his tax returns, the birther issue and support for the Iraq war.

Moderator Lester Holt helped Mrs. Clinton on the birther deal.

Trump made the mistake of over-explaining.

He should have simply shrugged off questions designed to trap him, refocusing on Secretary Clinton's many ethical problems.

But Trump felt the need to defend himself and that hurt him.

For example mentioning someone like Rosie O'Donnell is never a good thing.

If Donald Trump really wants to be president, he must put frivolities aside and concentrate on three "in stone" realities:

First, that the federal government is hurting the poor and working class by punishing the private sector with crazy regulations and high taxation.

Second, that Hillary Clinton's acceptance of Barack Obama's ISIS policy allows those savages to continue their terrorism at will.

And third, that the Democratic Party's embrace of grievance is pitting Americans against one another, demonizing the police and creating an environment where the USA is portrayed as oppressive not the land of opportunity it really is.

If Trump would hammer home those three themes he might distinguish himself in a way that would attract voters currently skeptical of him.

For her part Hillary Clinton needs to stop doing this:

CLINTON: “You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers.”

Those kinds of attacks diminish the secretary.

Trump would have been within fair decorum to respond with facts about the treatment of women when the Clintons were under siege in the White House.

The fact that Mr. Trump did not do that last night is to his credit.

Finally, Bret Baier had a wise comment today. He said that if the polls continue to build for Trump after the debate, the Clinton campaign will be in serious trouble.

Already many online surveys are boosting Trump's debate performance including those from WCBS and Time Magazine.

But the truth is both candidates can do much better.

And to win the White House they will have to.

That's the memo.

Clinton vs. Trump on the Debate Stage

2016-09-27T03:20:00Z

Let's set it up: 90-minute debate, six 15-minute segments, it should get underway about one hour from now.

The three general topics: America's direction, achieving prosperity, securing America.

Obviously, those are very general, so anything could happen.

Hillary Clinton won the coin toss, so Lester Holt's first question will go to her.

The same question will then be asked to Donald Trump.

Each candidate will have two minutes to answer the initial question, then the other candidate will have two minutes to respond.

So it's a back and forth.

There will be no opening or closing statements.

Now I like the format, but it kind of takes Mr. Holt out of things.

So if a candidate does not tell the truth, it is up to the other candidate to call him or her out because Holt will most likely not interrupt while Trump and Clinton are speaking.

I predict a bit of chaos with the back and forth and that might be entertaining.

Hillary Clinton has the advantage. She has done these one-on-one debates before, most notably with Barack Obama.

Mr. Trump has had debate experience only with a bunch of other people on stage. It's a lot more difficult one-on-one.

Also, Hillary Clinton is much more versed in policy, she can razzle-dazzle with facts and figures.

Donald Trump is more of a generalist, a big-picture guy, so when it comes to specifics we can expect more from Hillary Clinton.

But Talking Points believes that might not matter very much because demeanor, the way the candidates handle themselves, will be what many Americans are watching.

Example: It would be unwise for Donald Trump to make faces, as he sometimes did in the Republican debates.

Also, it would be a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to sound shrill or to call Trump names. That would erode her status as a public figure.

Both candidates have been heavily coached and will come armed with some one-liners, but there should be caution here.

As we saw over the weekend after the Clinton crew invited Mark Cuban to sit in the front row just to tweak Trump, he responded with an alleged invitation to Gennifer Flowers.

So right away the presidential debate got into the World Wrestling Federation mode.

Fortunately Ms. Flowers will not be attending, so the circus is on hold for the moment.

And yes, Hillary Clinton started it, there's no doubt.

But again Americans want authoritative problem solvers, not foolish games.

The demeanor factor is extremely important in this debate.

In 1960 then Vice President Richard Nixon basically lost the election because he looked bad at the debate - dour, sweaty and tense.

By contrast, the young senator from Massachusetts John F. Kennedy -- whom Americans did not really know -- came across as vibrant and very human.

1960

JOHN F. KENNEDY: "I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same. The question before us is, what point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?"

MODERATOR: "Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?"

RICHARD NIXON: "I have no comment."

And that was it for Nixon, although the election was very close.

Nixon of course won the presidency eight years later, but he should have won in 1960.

And then there are the one-liners:

1984

RONALD REAGAN: "I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

That witty line turned things around for Ronald Reagan, who had lost the first debate to Walter Mondale but made a comeback in the second.

From then on there was no stopping President Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984.

In 1988 there was a vice presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, a Democrat.

DAN QUAYLE (1988 GOP VP NOMINEE): "I have as much congressional experience as John Kennedy had when he ran for president."

SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN (1988 DEMOCRATIC VP NOMINEE): "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Now that line was not enough to elect Bentsen's running mate Michael Dukakis.

Why because the governor himself blew it:

MODERATOR: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

MICHAEL DUKAKIS (D-MA): "No, I don't and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

That answer from Dukakis painted him as insensitive to his own wife and hurt him dramatically.

Finally, if presidential candidates get their facts wrong in a big debate you've got trouble.

MODERATOR: "Mr. President, I would like to explore more deeply our relationship with the Russians. Our allies in France and Germany are now flirting with communism."

((EDIT))

GERALD FORD: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration."

That blunder by President Ford pretty much gave the election to Jimmy carter in 1976.

Now back to tonight. The polls are pretty much a dead heat going into the big show.

That's kind of shocking because many pundits believed Hillary Clinton would easily roll over Donald Trump.

If Mr. Trump stands his ground tonight, Secretary Clinton could be in major trouble.

I was in Colorado over the weekend and polls there say the race is tied.

If Colorado goes for Trump, he's the next president.

Same thing in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

On Friday we told you that North Carolina will now go to Trump because of all the racial unrest.

Social disorder always drives voters to the more authoritarian candidate.

So finally what's my prediction? As Mr. T once said in a Rocky movie: pain.

Both candidates no matter what they do will get smashed by the opposition.

No matter how good Donald Trump performs, the press will say he blew it.

No matter how astute Hillary Clinton may be, those who dislike her will continue to dislike her.

It's not like anybody will be going to Disney World.

And that's the memo.

The Charlotte Shooting and the Presidential Election

2016-09-24T03:49:00Z

Things calmed down a bit in that besieged city last night, but there is still tension in the air.

Earlier today attorneys for Keith Scott -- shot dead by police on Tuesday -- put out a video taken by Scott's wife that chronicles some of the confrontation.

RAKEYIA SCOTT, WIFE OF KEITH SCOTT: “Don’t shoot him. Don’t shoot him.”

OFFICER: “Drop the gun.”

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “He didn’t do anything.”

OFFICER: “Drop the gun. Drop the gun.”

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “He doesn’t have a gun. He has a T.B.I. [Traumatic Brain Injury]”

OFFICER: “Drop the gun.”

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “He is not going to do anything to you guys.”

((EDIT))

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “Keith, get out the car. Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it! Don’t you do it! Keith!”

OFFICER: “Drop the gun.”

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “Keith! Keith! Keith! Don’t you do it!” [SHOTS]

RAKEYIA SCOTT: “F***. Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? He better not be f****** dead. He better not be f****** dead. I know that f****** much. I know that much. He better not be dead. I’m not going to come near you. [Scott’s dead body comes into view] I’m going to record, though.”

Once again that video is not conclusive or an indictment of anyone.

There was obviously a chaotic confrontation. The police officer obviously believed Keith Scott had a gun and that's all we can take away from what you just saw.

Nevertheless some Americans will reach conclusions that have little basis in reality.

Let the investigation play out before you form a judgment.

The big problem is that some African-Americans sincerely believe the police want to hurt them.

BLACK FEMALE: “I could be at work, at school, in my car -- [SCREAMING] I could still get shot by the police, I could get shot anywhere. Do you see this?”

[Black female shows her black skin.]

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: “I do.”

BLACK FEMALE: “Do you see that?”

HARRIGAN: “Yes.”

BLACK FEMALE: “Do you see me?”

HARRIGAN: “Yes.”

BLACK FEMALE: “Do you see you? We are not the same. We are human. But I am black, and you are white.”

Now some of you will dismiss that woman's perception as false.

But to her and many other Americans, it's true. They believe the police in general are very suspicious of them.

So to be fair -- and that's what this program is all about -- the perception that African-Americans are at a disadvantage with the police must be considered.

However, the stats are the stats and we have laid them out for you time and time again on The Factor.

According to a recent Harvard study and Justice Department statistics, there is no methodical persecution of blacks by the police.

But again, you are not going to convince some Americans of that.

Therefore decisions have to be made.

Talking Points believes that the social unrest in Charlotte will give North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Donald Trump.

Social order will always be a conservative issue and Mr. Trump is taking a hard line.

Last night:

TRUMP: “At the center of our society is going to be a simple promise to every American—and it’s called safety. We need safety. We’re going to make America safe again.”

Again, the street protests in Charlotte will help Donald Trump in that state -- wait and see.

The truth is that when Americans see looters with masks, any individual case flies right out the window.

The family of Keith Scott deserves to know the truth about what happened.

The black police officer who shot Mr. Scott deserves that as well.

Today Hillary Clinton tweeted that the police video of the shooting should be released. She says that might ensure justice.

I'm not so sure. According to the Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, who has been a hero in this sad situation, the video is inconclusive and is currently in the hands of investigators trying to make a definitive analysis.

So caution may be the best policy here as Chief Putney has stated.

But politics being what they are, Secretary Clinton must come down on the side of the minority community, which she desperately needs to win the election.

As for minority Americans themselves, Talking Points has this to say:

Racial division can only be healed by dignified conduct.

That means no hate, no violence, no anarchy.

Martin Luther King, Jr. gained the respect of most Americans by preaching a message of fairness and exposing bigotry beyond any reasonable doubt.

He is now honored with a national holiday.

The president of the United States is half black, the attorney general is black, the secretary of homeland security is black, and African Americans have made enormous strides since Dr. King was assassinated.

No country is perfect. The overwhelming number of American police officers are decent human beings doing a tough job, putting themselves in danger every day.

Most African-Americans understand that and I believe are ashamed when other blacks loot burn and hate.

Finally, two updates: The police officer in Tulsa Betty Shelby, who shot dead an unarmed black man Terence Crutcher, has now been indicted on manslaughter charges.

And in Charlotte, police have arrested 21-year old Rayquan Borum, a protester, for killing another protester, 26-year-old Justin Carr.

The accused killer has spent time in prison and has two pending weapons charges against him.

Summing up, the Charlotte shooting will directly influence the presidential race and we can expect a number of questions during the debate on Monday night about racial tension in the USA.

There is a stark difference between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump on the issue.

Mr. Trump is running as the law and order candidate who appeals to people that despise social unrest, especially when it turns violent.

But Mr. Trump has to be careful that he does not denigrate legitimate concerns that the African-American community puts forth.

For her part Hillary Clinton must side with the minority communities on all issues.

If she does not, she will lose the election.

And that's the memo.

Acceptable Behavior

2016-09-23T01:08:00Z

For the past two nights protests over a police shooting in Charlotte have spiraled into chaos.

Looting and violence have broken out, resulting in scores of arrests, at least five police officers injured and nine civilians hurt, as well one in critical condition.

The controversy began on Tuesday after police killed 43-year old Keith Scott, shooting him to death after he allegedly brandished a hand gun.

The police chief of Charlotte Kerr Putney has been adamant that Mr. Scott, who had previous run-ins with the law, was armed.

But today the chief backed off that a little bit.

CHARLOTTE POLICE CHIEF KERR PUTNEY: "I was very clear when I talked about this before, is the video does not give me absolute definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing the gun. I did not see that in the videos I reviewed."

But Chief Putney still insists Mr. Scott had a gun.

Reaction from the black community came quickly.

MINISTER CORINE MACK, NAACP CHARLOTTE BRANCH PRESIDENT: "But in my mind, and in most of the community's mind, it really doesn't matter if he had a gun. At the end of the day, we have the right under the 2^nd Amendment to carry here in North Carolina. And their responsibility was to engage him in a more de-escalated way."

Minister Mack is correct on one point and wrong on another.

It certainly does matter if the dead man was carrying a gun, but she is right when she says that police do have an obligation to de-escalate confrontations if they can.

But what every responsible American should agree with is that you cannot break the law by looting, setting things on fire and harming people under any circumstances.

Fair-minded people know you let the investigation play out, you gather facts.

In the Ferguson case, for example, once the facts were known the myth that Michael Brown had his hands up and was not causing trouble was dispelled.

Now I am fully aware that some African-Americans do not trust the police or the investigative process in general.

And some have good reasons not to trust.

But that does not give you license to go on a rampage.

Just today in Tulsa the police officer who shot an unarmed black man last week was charged with manslaughter. She will now stand trial -- that is our system.

If you rejected the system and begin to commit crimes in the name of protest, you should be punished, not to mention that it hurts your own cause because mob violence will override any kind of singular injustice.

Both presidential candidates reacted to not only the Charlotte situation but another police killing in Oklahoma.

HILLARY CLINTON: "There is still much we don't know about what happened in both incidents, but we do know we have two more names to add to a list of African-Americans killed by police officers in these encounters. It's unbearable and it needs to become intolerable."

((EDIT))

DONALD TRUMP: "The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law abiding African-American residents who live in these communities where the crime is so rampant. ((EDIT)) There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct."

Obviously a major contrast between Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump.

Summing up, the violence in Charlotte is deplorable, sincere protest is admirable.

Looting and hurting other people unacceptable.

And that's the memo.

Hitler and Donald Trump

2016-09-22T01:24:00Z

The left in America is dazed and confused by how tight the presidential race is just a few days before the first debate.

The liberal media in particular is in panic mode, so they are breaking out the evil card: Adolf Hitler.

Writing in the Washington Post this week, crazy-left columnist Richard Cohen banners "Trump's Hitlerian Disregard for the Truth."

Basically Cohen puts forth that Trump is like Hitler in his thinking because, "He thinks the truth is what he says it is."

Interesting.

One point. According to most polls, about two-thirds of the American public believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Yet President Obama says his policies have put the USA in a good place.

Is that true because the president says it is?

Paging Richard Cohen.

By the way, if you access the Hitler column online, The Washington Post suggests you read other articles such as “Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.”

Or, “This is how fascism comes to America.”

Or, “The theory of political leadership that Donald Trump shares with Adolf Hitler.”

Finally, “Don't compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.”

Talking Points is not making this up. Check it out.

Now the reason for that kind of hysteria -- and that's what it is -- has to do with voters not doing what The Washington Post wants them to do.

A brand new Fox poll out today has Trump up in Ohio, Nevada and North Carolina.

If enough deplorables show up on Election Day, Trump could win.

That would spell doom for the progressive movement and our increasingly oppressive PC culture.

There isn't a man on earth less PC than Trump, and for committed progressive folks he is a nightmare.

BONO: “Look, America is like the best idea the world ever came up with, but Donald Trump is potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America. Potentially. Could destroy it ((EDIT)) He’s hijacked the party, and I think he's trying to hijack the idea of America. And I think it's bigger than all of us. I think this is really dangerous.”

Bono really believes that, but what he and other anti-Trump people don't understand is that demonizing Donald Trump is useless at this point.

What most Americans really want the next president to do is solve problems.

Most of us understand that ideology has divided the nation and led to economic and security hardship so you can "Third Reich" it all day long but it will not matter come November.

The candidate who best articulates security and economic improvement will win.

And that's the memo.

Domestic Terrorism and the Presidential Election

2016-09-20T02:32:00Z

Two Muslim men launched terror attacks over the weekend.

Twenty-eight-year-old Ahmad Rahami, a U.S. citizen who immigrated from Afghanistan, allegedly set off a bomb that injured 29 people in Manhattan. He was captured earlier today.

And 22-year-old Dahir Adan of Somali descent allegedly stabbed nine innocent folks in a Minnesota shopping mall before being shot dead by police. All the victims are expected to survive.

A couple of notes before we get into the reaction from Trump and Clinton.

No one can stop these attacks by disturbed individuals who are badly damaging the Islamic faith.

Young Muslim men are now looked upon with suspicion all over the world and the crazy terrorists are the reason why.

But even though individual mayhem is a fact of life, the Western world is far too lenient on ISIS and other terror groups. We should have devastated them a long time ago, not allowed them to hold territory and export mayhem.

That policy of light confrontation has led to mass chaos in the Middle East and Europe as millions of refugees leave their homes because no one will protect them from the horror imposed by the jihadists.

Nevertheless President Obama said again today that he is staying the course:

OBAMA: “We will continue to lead the global coalition in the fight to defeat ISIL, which is instigating a lot of people over the internet to carry out attacks. We are going to continue to go after them and take out their leaders, take out their infrastructure. ((EDIT)) And we’re going to continue to enlist tech companies and community and religious leaders to push back against online extremist content and all messages of hate.”

Good luck with that, Mr. President. You'll remember Apple would not even help crack the San Bernardino killer's phone.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump responded to the latest terror attacks today, both believing the other is incompetent on the terror issue:

TRUMP: “Our local police, they know who a lot of these people are. They're afraid of doing anything about it because they don't want to be accused of profiling. ((EDIT)) Do we have a choice? Look what's going on. Do we really have a choice? We're really trying to be so politically correct in our country.”

((EDIT))

HILLARY CLINTON: “We know that Donald Trump's comments have been used online for recruitment of terrorists. We've heard that from former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who made it a very clear point when he said Donald Trump is being used as a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists.”

Talking Points expects the terror issue to be in the forefront one week from tonight in the first debate.

Secretary Clinton's anti-terror posture is pretty much the same as what President Obama has put into place.

Mr. Trump is far more aggressive -- at least his words are -- in limiting the USA's exposure to Muslims abroad and punishing groups like ISIS.

On the terror issue Trump has the advantage as most Americans are pretty much fed up with the jihad and want to see a more aggressive policy to defeat it.

Trump also has emotion on his side as the president and Mrs. Clinton continue to downplay the Muslim angle even though just about all the terrorism these days is generated by Islamic fanatics.

Summing up, Trump has a major opportunity on the national security issue if he lays out plans that are specific and not harmful to innocent folks.

Migrants and peaceful Muslims are not the problem, jihadists are.

The next president will have to set up the terror target and then punch it out.

Anger is growing.

And that's the memo.

Blunting Trump's Momentum

2016-09-17T03:53:00Z

Hillary Clinton gave a stem-winder of a speech today in Washington trying to put Donald Trump on the defensive.

Mrs. Clinton must be stunned by the turnaround in the polls, especially in states like Florida and Ohio, which she needs to win.

Therefore the Clinton campaign had to make a statement and chose the personal route.

The main theme of her talk was that Trump is personally unfit to be president:

HILLARY CLINTON: “Donald Trump looks at President Obama after eight years as our president, he still doesn't see him as an American. Think of how dangerous that is. Imagine a person in the Oval Office who traffics in conspiracy theories and refuses to let them go, no matter what the facts are. Imagine someone who distorts the truth to fit a very narrow view of the world. Imagine a president who sees someone who doesn't look like him and doesn't agree with him and thinks that person must not be a real American. ((EDIT)) In addition to the president, Donald Trump looks at a distinguished federal judge born in Indiana and he sees a Mexican, not an American. He looks at a Gold Star family and sees them as Muslims, not patriotic Americans. He looks at women and decides how our looks rate on a scale of one to ten.”

Now it is clear that Secretary Clinton is playing the invective card. There was little policy in her speech today.

It was all about re-demonizing Trump as an unstable man who is hostile to a variety of Americans.

Will that tactic work?

Probably not because those who believe as Mrs. Clinton does are already in her camp.

By this time the 10% of Americans who are still persuadable have heard all the anti-Trump stuff before.

Now the big reason Hillary Clinton went after trump in a personal way is to refocus negative media attention on him, thereby taking it off her.

Today in the L.A. Times daily tracking poll, which bounces around a lot, Trump is now up by six after two weeks of press scrutiny on Hillary.

And the more extensive national polling from Fox News and others has Trump either beating or very close to Hillary Clinton among likely voters.

That has shocked the Democratic Party because Mr. Trump is an unusual candidate, to say the least, and has major baggage, as any big-time businessman would.

But Secretary Clinton's resume problems are far more extensive than Donald Trump's because of the FBI investigation and others.

That is holding Mrs. Clinton back.

For his part, Trump seems to be listening to his new team, which has imposed discipline on the campaign.

Today in Washington some generals endorsed Trump, concentrating on national security and the military.

In that exposition Trump spoke for less than 30 seconds dealing with the birther issue.

TRUMP: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again. Thank you.”

Ironically, just before Trump said that, President Obama actually helped him out, unwittingly:

OBAMA: “We’ve got other business to attend to. I was pretty confident where I was born. I think people were as well. My hope would be that the presidential election reflects more serious issues than that.”

So Trump caught a break today with Mr. Obama assisting in getting the birther issue off the table.

Going forward there are 10 days until the first debate.

Both candidates will be doing serious prep work for their presentations on Monday September 26th at Hofstra University on Long Island.

The whole world will be watching this debate and there is no coming back if you screw up.

Big-time pressure.

So it would behoove -- word of the day, behoove -- both of the candidates to avoid controversy before the debate.

Personal attacks at this point will most likely hurt the attacker.

It was almost pathetic today to watch the ravings on cable news by anti-Trump zealots. Did you just find out about the birther issue? If Trump is conceding, why the vitriol?

Again, hatred never plays well with the folks.

What fair-minded Americans really want are solutions to vexing problems.

They want specifics, they want clarity, they want consistency.

Whoever delivers that best from here on will win the White House.

And that's the memo.

The Press and the Presidential Election

2016-09-16T03:12:00Z

It is no secret that most in the media despise Donald Trump and coverage of the candidate reflects that.

Talking Points is sure supporters of Hillary Clinton would acknowledge that, even if she herself gets pounded on occasion.

That clear bias in hard news reporting is now reflected in a new Gallup Poll.

Before I give you the shocking numbers, listen to this sound bite from one of CNN's best hard news reporters:

Monday:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN REPORTER: “But surely this can't be a case of a human being having an off day. Nope. Like so many things Hillary, the media are having a field day, off to the races with another debilitating case of indignant outrage. This must be another typical Clinton conspiracy to fool them with total transparency breakdown. Talk about a transparency breakdown-what about Donald Trump's tax returns? Where are they? Can't a girl have a sick day or two?”

Ms. Amanpour has had a distinguished career as a fact-finding journalist.

So why is she giving her pro-Hillary Clinton opinion? She's not an analyst.

How can viewers now accept her information, especially about the campaign, without being skeptical?

How?

Americans know what's going on.

According to a new Gallup Poll, just 32% of us trust the news to be reported fairly and accurately.

That is the lowest media trust number in Gallup's history on the subject.

The question then becomes why is it so difficult to simply report in straight way without a tilt?

The answer: emotion.

Editors of many press operations now believe they are on a mission to save the USA from a guy like Trump and the deplorables who support him.

Same thing on the Clinton side.

A few, and I mean few, news concerns believe she is not honest and are out to get her.

That kind of advocacy hurts the folks.

Let me give you a vivid example.

The Washington Post is about as anti-Trump as a news operation can get.

Their top editorial guy Fred Hiatt bashes Trump almost every day and allows his mostly uber-left columnists to run wild.

So this week the Post's hard news division has raised some valid questions about how Mr. Trump runs his charitable foundation.

Our Truth Serum reporter will deal with that in a moment.

But the Post story is getting far less traction than it might because the paper is so committed to hurting Trump.

Therefore, some folks just ignore what the Post reports.

Now some of you will ask, what about Fox News?

From my vantage point in commentary, there are just as many FNC analysts who disparage Trump as support him. So we are balanced.

As for hard news, we play it straight at least from what I've seen and I've seen a lot.

Summing up, this coming presidential vote is extremely important for the country and Americans deserve honest reportage.

Sadly, we are not getting it.

And that's the memo.

Hacking Colin Powell and the Presidential Vote

2016-09-15T05:27:00Z

Hackers have embarrassed General Powell by accessing his emails and printing them so everybody can see his private correspondence.

The lesson for all of us: There is no privacy in this world.

Hackers can get into your system. You can be tape recorded at any moment. You can be photographed without your knowledge, and people can even listen to your private conversations while you're in your home using technology.

What an awful situation.

Enter Colin Powell, one of the savviest political players in America.

The former secretary of state plays both sides of the aisle and has succeeded in doing that for decades.

But now hackers have attacked him and the presidential vote may be affected.

Speaking about Donald Trump in an email, Powell said this quote:

"There is nothing he can say that will sway black voters, he takes us for idiots. …The whole birther movement was racist and for [Trump] to say yesterday that within four years he would have 95-percent of blacks voting for him is schizo fantasy."

That should come as no surprise, as Colin Powell has never been a fan of Donald Trump.

But even though he's a Republican, he is more favorable towards Hillary Clinton or so it seems.

The hackers put this out there quote:

"Sad thing [Hillary Rodham Clinton] could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done [about the emails] and not tie me into it. I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini-tantrum at a Hampton's party to get their attention."

Powell, as you may know, used private email himself as secretary of state, but not nearly to the extent that Mrs. Clinton did.

The general continued with another email quote:

"Been having fun with email-gate … Hillary's mafia keeps trying to suck me into it."

Now if a guy like Colin Powell can be hacked, anybody can.

The effect on the vote will probably be minimal, but we can expect more hacking stuff between now and Election Day.

Hacking aside, Donald Trump seems to be gaining in the race.

At least two new polls say that.

According to Reuters, Hillary Clinton's support is now 40%.

Trump, 39% among likely voters.

The LA Times daily tracking poll has it 47% for Trump, 42 for Clinton.

They must be going nuts out there in California.

Also a new Bloomberg poll has trump up by five in Ohio.

And a Monmouth poll out today of Nevada voters has Trump with 44%, Clinton 42%.

Back in July Mrs. Clinton was up by four.

While mid-September polls are interesting, the first debate on Monday, September 26th is likely to change things.

Both candidates know if they lose that debate they could very well lose the election.

Summing up, no privacy on the planet anymore; Colin Powell's embarrassed; the presidential race very tight.

And that's the memo.

A Basket of Problems for Hillary Clinton

2016-09-13T02:27:00Z

Not since President William Henry Harrison died of reported pneumonia in 1841 just 32 days into his term has that lung infection so captured the imagination of American voters.

As you most likely know by now, Hillary Clinton faltered at a 9/11 memorial on Sunday. Her campaign announcing afterward that she has pneumonia, something they knew last Friday.

Now the stamina of both Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump is amazing.

These people are under constant pressure, in motion all the time, and the fact that they can pull it off is astounding.

Going forward, both candidates should be candid about their health because it is a major factor in leadership.

But that situation is far overshadowed by the "basket of deplorables" comment.

Friday night:

HILLARY CLINTON: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.”

But not 50% of Trump supporters; that's lunacy, that smears millions and millions of Americans.

It didn't take long for Mr. Trump to strike back.

Baltimore, MD today:

TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country run. She spoke with contempt for the people who thanklessly follow the rules, pay their taxes, and scratch out a living for their family. ((EDIT)) Our support comes from every part of America and every walk of life. We have the support of cops, and carpenters and welders. The young and the old – and millions of working-class families who just want a better future.”

Talking Points believes that Secretary Clinton made a big mistake here reminiscent of Mitt Romney, saying that 47% of Americans would not vote for him because they want stuff.

Every fair-minded person knows you cannot generalize about what is in peoples' hearts.

And I don't include the far left under the banner of fair-minded.

Meet the Press, yesterday:

STEPHANIE CUTTER, OBAMA 2012 DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER: “He is attracting a certain type of voter. She gave a whole speech on describing them. They’re called the alt-right. ((EDIT)) So what she said was not wrong, her only mistake was that she described half of his supporters that way.”

That woman apparently believing that all who support Donald Trump are racist and inferior human beings.

That opinion was echoed on the op-ed page of the New York Times today by another far-left loon.

What Mrs. Clinton's comments really do is mobilize those who were thinking about voting for Donald Trump, not his hard core supporters.

I mean, come on. Branding people racist is despicable unless there is undeniable proof of that charge.

Again, fair-minded people know that.

When I heard Hillary Clinton say the "basket of deplorables" line I was surprised. She is a measured speaker and that line was written for her.

Somebody should have known that it would give Donald Trump a major advantage.

But again, campaigns are very strange things.

And that's the memo.

What Would You Like to Know About Hillary Clinton?

2016-09-10T03:47:00Z

Rosemary Browning who lives in Murfreesboro, Tennessee asks, "What is Hillary Clinton's stand on Black Lives Matter?"

Mostly supportive, Rosemary, even though her husband scolded them for interrupting his speech.

No Democratic candidate would dare call out the radical organization and Mrs. Clinton is no exception:

July 2015

HILLARY CLINTON: “Young people have taken to the streets dignified and determined, urging us to affirm the basic fact that black lives matter . (EDIT) I will never stop working on issues of equality and opportunity and race and justice.”

Second question is from Cynthia and John Mesher who live in Ocean View, Delaware: "There has been some speculation about Hillary Clinton's health. When did she last release her medical records?"

Secretary Clinton's doctor, Lisa Bardack, released a summary of Mrs. Clinton's health in July 2015.

She has seasonal allergies and hypothyroidism but is generally in good health according to the doctor.

Hilarie Rooney who lives in Stuart, Florida wants to know:

"How did Hillary Clinton get a concussion that occurred just before she was to testify about Benghazi?"

In December 2012 Secretary Clinton fainted while sick with a stomach virus.

She fell and sustained a concussion.

During treatment, a blood clot was discovered in her skull and was neutralized with blood-thinners.

Mrs. Clinton's testimony on Benghazi had been delayed because of that. Later she told the FBI that she could not recall some of the briefings she received around the time of the concussion.

Joe Schreiber from Costa Rica: "Why did Hillary Clinton not respond to former Ambassador Christopher Stevens' recommendation to move the U.S. intelligence facility in Benghazi?"

We can find no evidence the ambassador ever made such a request.

He did however ask for increased security for American personnel in Libya that was denied by Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy.

Secretary Clinton was asked about the security screw up at the House Benghazi hearings.

Oct. 22, 2015

REP. MIKE POMPEO (R-KS): "Do you know how many security requests there were in the 1st quarter of 2012?"

CLINTON: "For everyone or for Benghazi?"

POMPEO: "I’m sorry, yes ma’am. Related to Benghazi and Libya. Do you know how many there were?"

CLINTON: "No."

POMPEO: "Ma’am, there were just over 100 plus. In the 2nd quarter, do you know how many there were?"

CLINTON: "No, I do not."

POMPEO: "Ma’am there were 172ish – might have been 171 or 173. … How many were there in July and August and then in that week and few days before the attacks? Do you know?"

CLINTON: "There were a number of them. I know that."

POMPEO: "Yes, ma’am – 83 by our count. That’s over 600 requests. You’ve testified this morning that you’ve had none of those reach your desk. Is that correct also?"

CLINTON: "That’s correct."

Bottom line, the former secretary of state maintains she was not aware of the security requests from Libya.

Sue Boyd writes from Las Vegas: "What was the flesh-colored device in Hillary Clinton's ear when she was talking to Matt Lauer earlier this week?"

The Clinton campaign denies any device was placed in Clinton's ear. They say it was a lighting reflection that gave rise to the assertion.

Ronald Deangelis who lives in Stamford, Connecticut wants to know what Hillary Clinton's association was with the radical writer Saul Alinsky.

Hillary Clinton did her college thesis at Wellesley on Mr. Alinsky, a far-left guy. She interviewed him and said nice things about him.

He offered her a job, which she turned down to attend Yale Law School.

Ironically, in high school Hillary Clinton was a big Barry Goldwater supporter - about as far away from Alinsky as one can possibly get.

Next question from Tony Ford, who also lives in Las Vegas: "What are the facts in Hillary Clinton's leaving the Watergate investigation?"

She left because Nixon resigned. As an attorney working for the House Judiciary Committee her work was over when Nixon departed for California. There were reports that she was fired but those are not true.

John Schatvet, who lives in Topsham, Maine, wants to know if an American citizen can sue Hillary Clinton or any other federal official if they don't like their conduct in office.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision makes it almost impossible to win a legal judgment against a government official over job performance. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo in the ruling but that's the end game.

And finally, Dr. Corinne Michels from Manhasset, NY wants to know where Bryan Pagliano is.

Mr. Pagliano is a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton who worked at the State Department and handled her private server at her New York home.

The FBI granted Pagliano immunity in the email case, but what he told them remains a mystery and where he is right now, we don't know.

Very good questions. In fact I am going to give a copy of my new book "Killing the Rising Sun" to Cynthia and John Mesher who asked about Mrs. Clinton's medical records - very important.

Now on Monday, we will answer questions about Donald Trump. What do you want to know about him? It will be in the Talking Points Memo.

Two Blunders in Last Night's Defense Forum

2016-09-09T03:40:00Z

As you may know, both presidential candidates appeared on NBC last night to answer questions about national security.

And they both made fairly significant mistakes.

Now as you know, we do not nitpick here. If a candidate misspeaks or makes a minor error, we overlook it.

But there were two moments last night that American voters need to think about.

The first one was Donald Trump addressing a question about the Russian dictator Putin.

TRUMP: "The man has very strong control over a country. Now, it's a very different system, and I don't happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader. We have a divided country.”

The reason that description of Putin was a mistake is that it legitimized the Russian leader who doesn't deserve that courtesy.

Vladimir Putin is a killer who has corrupted his country and who routinely violates international law.

The reason Donald Trump is doing this is because he believes that he can partner up with Putin and convince him to stop being a villain.

If elected president, Trump will try to make Russia an ally - especially in the fight against ISIS.

That strategy is not wrong. But praising Putin is.

Let the tyrant earn friendly descriptions.

Now on to Hillary Clinton.

Her blunder dealt with ISIS.

CLINTON: "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops. So those are the kinds of decisions we have to make on a case-by-case basis."

Well I'm sure the ISIS savages were happy to hear that - taking ground troops off the table.

That means Secretary Clinton will essentially follow the Obama plan, which is acceptable losses allowing the ISIS savages to retain strongholds in Iraq and Syria while at the same time trying to limit their destruction all over the world.

You as a voter can decide how effective that strategy has been since ISIS became a menace after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq.

As Talking Points has stated before, the solution to the ISIS problem is to mobilize NATO and bring the fight to the terrorists while at the same time setting up safe zones for refugees so they don't flood into Europe.

That policy would work and the USA would not have to do all the heavy lifting.

Surely Hillary Clinton knows the NATO alliance is just sitting there doing very little to contain the jihad.

Why not mobilize that alliance?

Again, big mistake telling ISIS what you will and will not do to them.

Summing up, both candidates have to sharpen their international focus and with the 15th anniversary of 9/11 on Sunday, this is the perfect time to do it.

And that's the memo.

Hateful Speech

2016-09-08T02:41:00Z

Donald Trump gave a national security speech in Philadelphia today, concentrating on how he would bolster the military and pay for it by cutting back on civilian federal employees, among other things.

As we reported last night, Mr. Trump is making gains across the country - primarily because Hillary Clinton is getting pounded by scandal.

Day after day it's more reporting about the Clinton Foundation and the destroyed emails when she was secretary of state.

That has taken pressure off Mr. Trump, who is now getting more specific about what he would do as president.

So with two months left in the presidential campaign, it is a very close race.

Enter the strategy of hate.

On the Democratic side, the beat goes on - portraying Donald Trump as a bigot and hate inciter.

Here's what columnist Timothy Egan recently wrote in The New York Times:

"In the hate speech that Donald Trump gave on immigration in Phoenix on Wednesday night, he all but deported the Statue of Liberty, laying out one of the darkest visions of the American experience that any major-party nominee has ever given."

Now this is not boosterism for Donald Trump, but Mr. Egan's analysis is unfair and inaccurate.

In Arizona, Mr. Trump re-stated that he would build a wall on the Mexican border to stem the flow of narcotics and illegal aliens.

He also said he would crack down on alien criminals who commit violence in the USA.

Is that hate speech? Is that deporting the Statue of Liberty?

I mean, think about it. Trump believes the nation is not secure when hard drugs and undocumented people can freely flow into the USA.

Is that a hateful position?

Talking Points believes this demonization by the left of anyone -- including me, your humble correspondent -- who disagrees with their uber-liberal policies will fail.

The fact is that Donald Trump's Arizona speech helped him, as the new polls show.

Americans are tired of far-left media people accusing people of racism, bigotry and hate.

That is a cheap tactic and it should be rejected by all fair-minded people.

That same thing is true to a much lesser extent on the right.

Demonizing Hillary Clinton is foolish. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Secretary Clinton denies any wrongdoing in the email and Foundation controversies.

But there are plenty of facts in play, so you can easily decide whether her denials have credibility.

Also, it is quite clear that Secretary Clinton believes Barack Obama has done a heck of a job.

Again, facts are clear. Reality stares us in the face.

So it is not difficult to make a decision about either candidate.

We don't need despicable and hateful branding.

We need clarity.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump's Big Gamble

2016-09-07T04:01:00Z

By going to Mexico last week, Mr. Trump signaled that he is willing to engage in diplomacy.

But as soon as he got back to the USA, he repeated his policy of being tough on illegal aliens.

There was some nuance, but not much.

And that is Mr. Trump's big gamble.

He is hoping that American voters are fed up with a federal government that will not enforce immigration law thereby allowing chaos to reign and actual harm to come to Americans like Kate Steinle.

The Republican ticket apparently believes there are many voters who are silently sick of permissive immigration policies in place for decades.

Remember, if you are outspoken about enforcing immigration laws the left will brand you a nativist and perhaps a racist.

That's a vicious card to play and it has inhibited speech to some extent.

There is no question that illegal immigration is an explosive issue - one that allowed Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination.

Again it comes down to this: Are most American voters fed up with anarchy?

Tough question to answer because you can't count on the polls to indicate true feelings.

As mentioned, many people shy away from openly supporting tough measures against illegal aliens even though they may support them.

For those voters Trump offers a border wall, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, and zero tolerance for aliens who commit crimes on American soil.

That's a powerful lure for disenchanted voters.

That being said, there is no question that Donald Trump will not, will not deport millions of aliens who have been peaceful while residing in the USA.

He seems to be moderating his position on that.

More than a year ago we discussed the issue.

O'REILLY: "Listen, I think you are right about the wall. I think you are wrong about the mass deportations and going into families. I think they have to be held accountable and I think they have to be registered and they have to go through the process. But I can't possibly see how the courts, the federal courts, are going to allow federal agents to kick doors in and drag people out."

At the time Donald Trump disagreed with me. So what's changed?

We'll talk with him in a moment.

Although it's not directly linked, the race situation is also a problem for Mr. Trump.

The truth is, African Americans will not vote for him in any great numbers primarily because the Democratic Party retains credibility in the black precincts.

Also, Donald Trump is identified as being a birther - someone who has questioned President Obama's American citizenship.

Many black Americans do not like that.

However, it is very possible that African Americans will not turn out in great numbers this coming November.

Certainly Secretary Clinton is not as popular as President Obama with black voters.

Donald Trump's foray to Detroit was a wise move even though the usual suspects slammed him.

REVE. WENDELL ANTHONY: “Your platform as the leader of the Republican Party does not speak to a civil rights agenda. You’re talking about civil rights when you are engaging in civil wrongs to the degree that your party doesn’t speak to it, you have never spoken to it, and we don’t know who Donald Trump really is.”

It's almost amusing that Reverend Anthony excoriates the Republican Party's racial policies when the Democrats have allowed the city of Detroit to be destroyed right before his own eyes.

Politics trumping reality once again.

Talking Points well understands that Donald Trump will have to overwhelmingly win the white vote to have any chance at being president.

And last week's immigration and race story lines might have helped him.

A new CNN poll out today has Trump leading Hillary Clinton 49 to 48

If you factor in the other two alternative candidates, Trump wins 45-43.

That's a big turn around from mid-August and it was driven, according to CNN, by 90% of Republican voters now supporting Trump.

The L.A. Times Daily Tracking Poll has the race tied, Trump 44, Clinton 44.

NBC News poll has it Clinton 48, Trump 42

In a four-way race - Clinton 41, Trump 37.

So again, Trump is making some progress - or so the polls say.

But it all comes down to electoral votes and here Donald Trump has some difficulty.

Hillary Clinton is competing in states like Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

Those states usually vote Republican.

Donald Trump needs to win those three, Florida, Ohio and either Pennsylvania or Michigan to be competitive.

That will not be easy.

Summing up, Trump's tough stance on immigration looks to be a winner for him at this point.

The race deal is primarily symbolic. Blacks will vote for Mrs. Clinton.

But with a debate coming up in less than three weeks, Trump still has a fighting chance.

And that's the memo.

A New Strategy From the Trump Campaign

2016-08-24T03:06:00Z

To take the heat off their candidate, the Trump campaign is now focusing on Hillary Clinton's continuing email and Foundation controversies.

The plan is this - to demonize Mrs. Clinton with the corruption label; to demand an independent prosecutor be assigned to look at her behavior; and to tell voters that ongoing scandal will not benefit the country.

Yesterday Mr. Trump made things clear:

Yesterday at a rally in Akron, OH

TRUMP: “The Clintons made the State Department into the same kind of pay-for-play operations as the Arkansas Government was. ((EDIT)) The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant number of times it was done require an expedited investigation by a special prosecutor immediately.”

So for the next few weeks we will be hearing that Attorney General Loretta Lynch should appoint a prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation and perhaps the new email dump which we will tell you about in a few moments.

For her part, Secretary Clinton is keeping cool.

She appeared with Jimmy Kimmel last night.

CLINTON: “Jimmy, my emails are so boring. And I'm embarrassed about that. They're so boring. So we've already released, I don't know, 30,000 plus so what's a few more.”

That is a smart strategy by Secretary Clinton not to run from the controversies but to underplay them.

Mrs. Clinton well understands that her base doesn't care very much about the email or Foundation situations and her campaign is hoping that independent voters are tired of it as well.

All in all, this presidential campaign is nasty and will get worse.

Talking Points predicted that because there is so much at stake. The difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is enormous and partisans on both sides are mobilized to the highest degree.

Obviously we are all living in a time where America is a divided country.

Republicans have nominated a populist, a magnet for controversy who promises great change.

Democrats have nominated a traditional politician, also a controversy magnet, whose policies are not much different than those of Barack Obama.

For me as a voter, I don't like all the strife. I don't like the polarization. But it's reality and we have to deal with it.

And that's the memo.

What the Olympics Say About the USA

2016-08-23T04:35:00Z

The final medal count in Rio shows how much America dominated the games.

The USA-winning 121 total medals.

China was next, 70.

Great Britain, 67.

Russia, 56.

Germany and France both had 42.

The games demonstrated that this country remains a superpower not only in military matters but also in athletics.

Look, a pool is a pool, a track is a track. It doesn't matter how much money a country has, it doesn't matter what the social system is.

Kenya, for example, dominates long-distance running and that's a very poor place.

The adage is that skill gets you to the Olympic games but will makes you a champion.

And it's very clear that American athletes have the will the discipline and the skill to dominate the sporting world.

The best image for me was the sight of the American basketball team carrying our flags after they won the gold medal.

The team was all minority and demonstrated pride in their country.

When the national anthem was played, players had their hands on their hearts … no cheap shots at the country that had given them the opportunity to succeed at the highest level.

So to me the spirit of America is intact despite the fact that zealots and loons on both political spectrums are trying to tear the USA down.

If you believe the far left, we are a bigoted country that actively seeks to destroy young black males.

The crazy left also puts out that we want to persecute innocent immigrants, that our economic system is geared only to help the wealthy, that our social system punishes the poor.

Those are all lies but they are spread by politicians and some in the dishonest media who actively despise their country and seek to break it down.

Talking Points has expounded on Black Lives Matter, there's no need to do that again here other than to say the leadership of that organization hates America.

On the other side, there are far-right cranks -- the David Duke folks -- who refuse to recognize the struggles and achievements of minority Americans.

These are hateful people who deserve all the scorn they are receiving.

But remember, the American media will viciously attack anyone on the right who offends them, while many far-left people like George Soros get a complete pass.

That's why the true image of the USA is not portrayed to the world, while rank propaganda often is.

However, the truth was put forth by our Olympic athletes who performed magnificently and once again proved that America is a place of tremendous achievement.

Yes, the swimmer Ryan Lochte and his friends demonstrated the narcissism and deceit that so many younger Americans have embraced.

But other than that, our athletes represented America in a very positive way.

We are indeed a country of achievement, opportunity and success.

If you are here, you can make it.

And that's the memo.

Who Would Protect Us Better, Trump or Clinton?

2016-08-19T03:25:00Z

While the left-wing media wants to put a stake through the Trump campaign's heart, the truth is he does have a chance to win the presidency.

That chance hangs on two issues - the economy and combatting Islamic terrorism.

If there is another terror attack on U.S. soil, Americans will react and that, of course, could change voting patterns.

Almost a year ago after the Paris attack I put forth a plan to defeat the ISIS savages.

O'REILLY: “Here is the strategy you should employ immediately. The president of France clearly stated the ISIS attack was an act of war. France is a member of the 28-nation NATO alliance. Article 5 of that alliance says that an attack on one country is an attack on all. So all 28 nations should now begin to organize a campaign to crush the ISIS killers. That should include ground troops, bombings, no-fly zones, border security for Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and a central command and control center based in Europe. Once NATO declares war on ISIS things will radically change.”

Obviously the Obama administration ignored that advice and continued a far less aggressive action against ISIS.

Here is a stunning fact - there are 28 nations in the NATO alliance. Only eight are actively fighting against ISIS.

The USA, Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Australia is not part of NATO but does contribute.

So where are the other 20 NATO countries?

Why are they not fighting the killers?

President Obama is silent on that question. And it is appalling that NATO has not been organized to defeat the ISIS threat.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein agrees:

"It is now time to recognize that an increased US presence, acting with NATO countries and other partners, could enhance the effort to eliminate Islamic state. Creating a NATO rapid-reaction force to serve as an attack force against Islamic State would make a major impact. … [And] would help to eliminate ISIS safe havens and to stanch the flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe."

Senator Feinstein is correct. We were hoping she would come on The Factor to talk about it but she has declined.

You may have noticed that is a pattern among Democratic senators.

I'm not paranoid but there seems to be an organized effort to keep Democratic politicians off this network.

Anyway, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have also put forth strategies.

TRUMP: “My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS. International cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyber warfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.”

((EDIT))

CLINTON: “We cannot contain ISIS. We must defeat ISIS. ((EDIT)) We need to rely on what actually works, not bluster that alienates our partners. And doesn't make us any safer.”

Mrs. Clinton would most likely take a more aggressive stance against ISIS than President Obama but she has not really spelled that out yet.

What this comes down to is will. Barack Obama simply does not have the motivation to quickly destroy the ISIS savages, thereby sending a message to the world.

That is clear.

But the present danger is also clear. The next terror attack is coming at any time. There will be more innocent people slaughtered while NATO does little to stop the carnage.

And what about those poor refugees that Senator Feinstein mentioned? Who’s helping them? Who’s providing safe zones near where they live?

Nobody.

Summing up, Americans are engaged emotionally with the terror fight and that will affect the upcoming vote.

Both candidates should make ISIS a top priority.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump Goes Back to his Populist Approach

2016-08-18T03:24:00Z

In a speech last night outside of Milwaukee the candidate spoke forcefully about the problems facing America.

Trying to broaden his appeal, Mr. Trump directed some of his remarks at African Americans:

TRUMP: “I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen struggling in our country today who wants a different and much better future. It’s time for our society to address some honest and very difficult truths. The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community.”

Mr. Trump pointing to the median household income for blacks falling during President Obama's tenure.

Black home ownership has also fallen.

And the black poverty rate has risen slightly.

As far as crime is concerned, blacks make up 13% of the population but 38% of all violent crime arrests are African-American individuals.

In education blacks have the highest high school drop out rate and score lowest among American ethnic groups in math and writing on the SATs.

So it would seem that Donald Trump has a point.

The stats say that under a progressive Democratic president, black Americans are less well off then they were under President Bush the younger.

Now it would be hard to believe that black Americans would rally behind Donald Trump because he has been successfully demonized in many African American precincts.

Also Trump's style does not seem to appeal to minority voters in general. There is no question about that.

But on the issues it is clear that liberal policies have not really helped the African-American community.

However, Talking Points believes that change is not in the air, that blacks and other minorities will go big for Hillary Clinton despite the current state of the union.

Will anything change that?

No.

And that's the memo.

George Soros, the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton

2016-08-17T03:11:00Z

As you may know, the 85-year-old billionaire is a far-left fanatic whose Open Society Organization advocates no borders anywhere in the world.

According to Soros, everyone should be able to go wherever they want for any reason and stay there.

Recently hackers, believed to be backed by Russia, exposed more than 2,000 documents connected to Soros and his Open Society.

The information is disturbing.

Soros has given about ten million dollars to groups opposed to the policies of Israel.

He has funded individuals accusing Israel of war crimes.

He has given a variety of grants to people who literally hate Israel.

In addition, Soros has funded investigations of individuals who are opposed to radical Islam.

People such as Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, Liz Cheney and Cliff May.

Mr. May will be here in just a few moments.

Finally, Soros has donated about $13 million to the Democrats this election cycle.

That includes seven million bucks to a Hillary Clinton Super PAC.

Twelve years ago, here's what Mrs. Clinton said about George Soros.

HILLARY CLINTON: “We have been given an extraordinary blessing and at this moment in time our country needs us and we need people like George Soros who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.”

Now to be fair, that soundbite is dated. But the Clinton campaign is accepting money from Soros this year and that may present a problem for the secretary.

You may remember that Donald Trump got hammered by the media for not disavowing David Duke quickly enough.

Duke, of course, a far-right hater.

But now we have a far-left individual, Soros, bent on harming Israel - America's strongest ally in the Middle East.

So how will the media cover that situation? Again, Soros is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.

Talking Points believes the mainstream press will largely ignore the Soros story even though it is very important.

Does the Democratic Party advocate open borders worldwide?

A situation that would make it easy for Islamic terrorists to kill at will?

Does the Democratic Party support the enemies of Israel?

Do Jewish voters even know this is all happening?

Again, a major situation brought to you by Russian hackers and presented to a largely apathetic press when it comes to reporting the truth about the upcoming election.

Summing up, the Democratic Party must comment on Mr. Soros and his activities.

We have requested a statement from the DNC.

We will let you know if they reply tomorrow.

And that's the memo.

Where the Trump Campaign Is Right Now

2016-08-16T04:15:00Z

Even though the polls say Hillary Clinton is up by about seven points nationally, voters are not jumping up and down for either candidate generally speaking.

But it is certainly true that Donald Trump has lost support, and in states like Florida, North Carolina and Virginia he is falling behind Secretary Clinton.

One cautionary note: Polling in mid-August doesn't really mean much. Only after Labor Day will polling begin to shed some real light on the race.

And after the first debate on September 26^th, the polling will become intense.

There is no question that Donald Trump is hurting himself by using the same kind of rhetoric that helped him win the primaries.

It's very ironic. Trump's shoot from the hip, seek-and-destroy speechmaking vaulted him over all his Republican challengers.

But now when he makes a flamboyant statement, it is rammed down his throat by a hostile press.

Some examples:

On July 29th the government announced that growth in the second quarter was 1.2%, a disaster and the Democratic Party immediately was on the defensive.

But just two days later Donald Trump criticized Ghazala Khan, the mother of an army captain killed in Iraq.

Immediately all hell broke loose and the disappointing economic number vanished from view.

Same thing happened on August 9^th, as emails showed that Hillary Clinton used her position as secretary of state to possibly benefit the Clinton Foundation.

Big story.

But the exact same day Donald Trump said this:

TRUMP: "Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish the 2nd Amendment and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Immediately the liberal press accused Trump of threatening Mrs. Clinton.

The Washington Post editorialized:

"... encouraging armed resistance against the federal government is not the most worrisome of possible meanings. Other listeners assumed that Mr. Trump was encouraging supporters to train their weapons on Ms. Clinton herself."

Think about how insane that sentence is, other listeners assume Trump wants Clinton murdered.

Yet the Washington Post editorial board printed that insanity.

Why? Well, they despise Donald Trump and are using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, number 13 quote:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy."

That's what the anti-Trump press is doing.

But back to Trump himself. There are two things in play here. He is not recognizing that explosive comments like those about Muslim women and gun control can and will be used against him.

And that an extremely hostile American press will use his words not only to denigrate him, but also to avoid reporting on real issues affecting the country.

I predicted this would happen more than a year ago.

July 21, 2015

O'REILLY: "Finally tonight, The Factor 'Tip of the Day,' the media despising Donald Trump. And here is why. He has no fear. He could not care less about censoring himself and the press does not intimidate him. Because of that approach, the media believe they must punish Mr. Trump for being disrespectful and not cowering before them. Plus, they don't like his politics generally speaking."

So the Trump campaign is now in trouble and today the candidate sought to begin rebuilding his base.

In Youngstown, Ohio, Mr. Trump laid out his plan to aggressively defeat Islamic terrorism.

TRUMP: "My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS. International cooperation to cut off their funding. Expanded intelligence sharing and cyber warfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and their recruiting."

In speaking with Mr. Trump over the months, it is safe to assume that he would attack ISIS on the ground using some American forces.

That separates him from the Obama administration and perhaps Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Trump also reiterated that he will not get any more specific about his ISIS strategy.

That was immediately mocked by Hillary Clinton.

TRUMP: "My administration will not telegraph exactly military plans and what they are (APPLAUSE)"

((EDIT))

HILLARY CLINTON: "Sometimes he says he won't tell anyone what he'll do because he wants to keep his plan quote 'secret' (crowd laughs). Then it turns out the secret is he has no plan (crowd laughs)."

Now that's politics as usual, but it is clear that Donald Trump would take a far more aggressive policy against the jihadists than the Democrats are advocating.

So you the voter have that contrast to consider.

But overall the press has succeeded in marginalizing Donald Trump and he has helped them do it.

Again, what worked in the primaries -- bombastic attacks -- will not work in the general election unless the attacks are very specific.

If you say President Obama created ISIS, for example, you have to immediately back that up with facts.

If you say something about elections being rigged, you'll get hammered unless you can prove your point with data.

Talking Points is dedicated to covering the Trump-Clinton race in a fair way.

It is a fact that if you do not condemn Donald Trump, you yourself are condemned by many in the media.

Same thing in the far-right precincts -- if you don't call Hillary Clinton the devil, then somehow you become Lucifer.

Those points of view are dangerous. We need clarity on issues, not mud-based attacks.

Despite all the controversy Donald Trump could still win the presidency.

He needs to discipline himself rhetorically, he needs to start spending money in the swing states to counter negative ads against him, and he needs to present himself in a less personal way.

Today in his speech he was strong about protecting America in the areas of immigration security and dealing with terror on the Net.

Liberal Americans are not going to vote for Donald Trump, so there is little risk in him continuing to lay out a tough anti-terror and anti-illegal alien program.

Combine that with a faltering economy and Trump has a chance.

But right now Hillary Clinton is definitely ahead.

And that's the memo.

What the Folks Think About the Trump Campaign

2016-08-03T03:22:00Z

Unfortunately, it is the press which largely defines the campaigns for president.

And as we all know, the American media leans sharply left, so we the people are often barraged with propaganda rather than reality.

The populist newspaper USA Today is a good example.

It is on a jihad against Donald Trump, posting negative page one headlines day after day.

Sometimes Mr. Trump deserves them but there is little balance.

Now it is certainly true that most voters do not rely on the media to make decisions.

But some uninformed Americans are swayed by what they believe is popular opinion.

So tonight I want to give everyday folks a voice commenting on the Trump campaign, which has taken some hits over the Khan controversy.

Marcus Smith who lives in Hagatna, Guam writes:

"Mr. O, Kirsten Powers is correct stating that you were overgenerous to Trump regarding his Muslim comments. This proves you are endorsing him."

False, Marcus. We endorse no one.

I clearly told Kirsten that context is important when launching critical arguments. And the press rarely provides context.

For example, when speaking about Muslim women Trump raised the inequality argument which is certainly valid when discussing Islam. While that cannot be applied to Mrs. Khan because we don't know her circumstance and we must be sensitive to her great loss, the general point was mentioned by me to provide context.

James Love writes from Norman, Oklahoma: "So we're down to a choice between someone who does stupid things and lies about them, as opposed to someone who says stupid things and tries to justify them."

That's kind of dark, James. Both candidates are human beings with all the downside that goes with that. The question is who will better run the country.

Patrick Newman checks in from Manchester, New Hampshire: "O'Reilly, you dropped the ball when Trump said he was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan. Hillary Clinton was also attacked by dozens of people at the RNC and didn't respond."

First, I clearly pointed out how Mrs. Clinton handled the Pat Smith broadside.

Second, there is a style difference between Clinton and Trump. He confronts - she is far more measured. Will be interesting to see how the corresponding styles play out in the debates.

Carol Rollo, Pensacola, Florida: "O'Reilly, after last night's interview with Trump, I finally realize what is wrong with him - he lacks wisdom."

Not fair, Carol. The man is new to the political game and is under intense scrutiny. Obviously, anyone in that position will make mistakes. It is how fast he learns from the mistakes that will make or break his campaign.

Gina Mendoza writes from Miramar, Florida: "The Democrats are baiting Trump, hoping he will explode. Why can't anyone in his campaign tell him that?"

I'm sure they have and Trump knows that as well - he's a shrewd man. But it is discipline that defines how any candidate reacts. Discipline will be the key to this election - and Hillary Clinton is a very disciplined candidate.

Summing up, the American voter is paying attention and I believe trying to vote responsibly.

But emotion rules the race - not a good thing.

And that's the memo.

Will President Obama Help or Hurt Hillary Clinton in Her Quest to Become President?

2016-08-02T03:44:00Z

On Friday, the Commerce Department gave Americans the bad news.

Economic growth is now tracking at one percent this year - one percent.

That's the weakest start to a year since 2011 and the worst economic recovery since 1949.

That report issued just two days after President Obama said this:

OBAMA: "After the worst recession in 80 years, we fought our way back. We've seen deficits come down, 401(k)s recover, an auto industry set new records."

And that is true. Big business and the stock market are generally doing well.

But on your street, that might not be the case.

The Wall Street Journal reports that some corporations are not investing in the future. Rather, they are taking as much profit as they can right now.

That signals that big business does not believe the American economy is robust.

And who suffers? The worker. Because jobs are not being created.

So President Obama can say anything he wants, trot out any stats he wants, but the reality is we are living in a country that today has one percent economic growth.

Now how is Hillary Clinton going to handle that, because the economy is the most important issue of the campaign.

Here's what she said Thursday night:

CLINTON: "Our economy is so much stronger than when they took office. Nearly 15 million new private-sector jobs. Twenty million more Americans with health insurance. And an auto industry that just had its best year ever. ((EDIT for applause)) Now that's real progress. But none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."

The problem is, Mrs. Clinton has not defined precise economic measures she would take to change the status quo other than a $275 billion federal investment in public works spending.

But that's taxpayer dollars, not private sector stimulation -- the same scenario President Obama has been using.

Trump, on the other hand, says he will renegotiate all kinds of trade deals and punish corporations who move jobs overseas.

The Republican candidate also says he will cut corporate and personal taxes to stimulate consumer spending and investment.

Hillary Clinton says she will raise taxes on the wealthy but has not clearly defined her corporate tax view.

So you, the voter, have to decide which economic posture you believe will be effective.

Now, on to immigration. It is here that Trump is most militant.

If elected, he will build a wall on the southern border and bring heavy scrutiny to illegal aliens living in the USA.

There's no wiggle room. Trump would have to do that.

Secretary Clinton has a much more nuanced approach.

CLINTON: "Comprehensive immigration reform will grow our economy and keep families together - and it's the right thing to do. ((EDIT for applause)) So whatever party you belong to, or if you belong to no party at all, if you share these beliefs, this is your campaign."

These beliefs?

I'm not really sure what that means.

Right now the Democratic Party has no program to secure the southern border. Apparently the party believes all is well down there.

But the Border Patrol Union has endorsed Trump, so all may not be well.

Also, if you read the Democratic Party platform, it basically says that any illegal alien who does not commit a crime here should be able to stay.

The Bernie Sanders crew wants open borders and complete amnesty for everyone.

Does Hillary Clinton want that? We don't know yet.

The calculation may be that Hispanic-Americans do not want any immigration action other than assimilation.

If the Clinton campaign comes to that conclusion, the secretary will not say much about illegal immigration other than the clichéd mantra "comprehensive immigration reform."

Finally, terrorism a very big issue - especially if there's another attack in America.

It is clear that Barack Obama's policy toward ISIS and other Islamic jihadists is to defeat them gradually.

The president does not want to commit ground troops even if they are under an international banner like NATO.

Mr. Obama's policy is called "acceptable loses." That is, in the terror conflict, people will die and you don't overreact by committing massive forces to destroy ISIS.

I mean look at what has happened. ISIS gained power under the Obama administration and while it has been recently set back, it is still the world's most dangerous organization.

And these savages sit there in Raqqa, Syria, 50 miles away from the Turkish border.

Trump says he will defeat ISIS quickly.

But he says he will not tell voters how because then ISIS would know.

But there is no question that Donald Trump is far more aggressive, at least verbally, than President Obama has been on the ISIS situation.

So what does Hillary Clinton do?

Here's what she said on Thursday:

CLINTON: "Anyone reading the news can see the threats and turbulence we face. From Baghdad to Kabul, to Nice and Paris and Brussels, from San Bernardino to Orlando, we're dealing with determined enemies that must be defeated. ((EDIT)) We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen."

That is the same policy that President Obama has. Very little difference.

Today, new polling says that Mrs. Clinton did get a bump from her convention. She's slightly ahead of Donald Trump if you factor in margin of error.

But a political scientist at Stony Brook University in New York says that Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in November.

The teacher, Helmut Norpoth, bases his projection on the primary votes in both parties and past presidential elections.

That is speculation, but so are the polls at this point.

Americans will not lock in until after Labor Day and of course the three debates will mean everything this year.

Finally, Hillary Clinton has to decide how much President Obama's support means to her campaign.

It is a given that this election is very personal - African Americans and Hispanics largely supporting her, white Americans supporting Trump in large numbers.

For you far-left smear websites out there, that is a general statement of fact backed up by the polls.

So President Obama campaigning for Hillary Clinton will galvanize the minority vote.

However, it may also drive more working-class white voters into the Trump camp.

Mr. Obama is convinced that his economic programs saved America from a great depression.

But that kind of conjecture means nothing to people who are struggling to pay their bills.

Summing up, Trump offers bold change in his speeches.

Secretary Clinton offers mainly conventional liberal thinking.

She can depart from that to some extent without alienating her party.

But if she repudiates any of President Obama's policies she knows she might alienate him.

And that's the memo.

The Party of Love Versus the Party of Hate

2016-07-29T04:59:00Z

The party of optimism against the party of pessimism.

Let's start with President Obama's speech last night, which set the table for that campaign theme.

A recent Gallup poll says that just 17% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the USA.

Apparently the president is among those 17%:

OBAMA: “By so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we first started. And through every victory and every setback, I've insisted that change is never easy and never quick.”

So it is clear that the Democratic Party is going to run on a platform that things are swell even though the folks see it differently.

That may be an advantage for Donald Trump.

But there is a deeper theme that has developed at this convention.

And that is love.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): “I love Donald Trump, I’m going to say that. I don't want to answer his hate with hate. I’m going to answer to answer it with love. I'm not going to answer his darkness with darkness. I love him.”

When I first heard Senator Booker say that, I was perplexed but tossed it aside.

Then Bill Clinton said this:

BILL CLINTON: “We were married in that little house on October the 11th, 1975. I married my best friend. I was still in awe after more than four years of being around her at how smart and strong and loving and caring she was.”

Loving and caring the key words of the president's description of his wife.

So now a theme is starting to develop in my mind.

The original summer of love was in 1967, as a bunch of hippies got mellow on the west coast.

In 2016 we are heading toward another summer of love.

But not entirely.

Behind the touchy feely stuff lies the "h" word.

Here's President Obama speaking about the Republican convention last week:

OBAMA: “What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other, and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems - just the fanning of resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate.”

As we reported last night, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein is also describing Republicans as the party of hate.

So as dim as I am, I am now getting it. Democrats -- party of love. Republicans -- party of hate.

That is the dominant theme in Philadelphia this week.

It will be interesting to see if Hillary Clinton creates that image in her speech this evening.

Now it is pretty easy for liberal partisans to despise Donald Trump. His vision is the polar opposite of theirs.

TRUMP: “But I watched last night, and they’re not talking about the real world. They’re not talking about radical Islamic terrorism. They’re not talking about borders where people just pour across. They’re not talking about the crime, the kind of crime that we have in this nation. They’re not talking about the fact that many people in our country are making less money today in terms of real wages than they were making 18 years ago. They’re not talking about that.”

But why would they?

Democrats are running mainly on emotion, that Trump is dangerous to the republic.

But Trump is doing the exact same thing, putting forth that Hillary and the president are incompetent and have drastically weakened the country.

Summing up, love is in the humid Philadelphia air, but it's kind of a phony play.

It is loathing, maybe even hate that is driving the political debate this year.

And all the incense and love beads in the world will not change that.

And that's the memo.

More Vicious Attacks from the Far Left Media Deceivers

2016-07-28T04:13:00Z

On Monday Michelle Obama said that America has come a long way from the days when slaves built the White House.

Some criticized her analysis, saying it demeaned the USA.

I disagree and presented the facts of Mrs. Obama's statement last night.

O'REILLY: “As we mentioned Talking Points memo, Michelle Obama referenced slaves building the White House in referring to the evolution of America in a positive way. It was a positive comment. The history behind her remark is fascinating. George Washington selected the site in 1791, and as president laid the cornerstone in 1792. Washington was then running the country out of Philadelphia. Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House. Records show about 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here. In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the executive mansion. It was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail and they were still hammering nails. The construction was still going on. Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the Feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House but there were others working as well.”

That commentary is one hundred percent accurate, providing context to Mrs. Obama's remarks and explaining how the administration of George Washington conducted itself in the construction of the executive mansion.

Is that not important to know?

For doing that I was immediately attacked by smear merchants.

The rank tabloid New York Daily News says, "O'Reilly defends use of White House slaves …"

That is a lie. I defended nothing. The publisher of the Daily News, Mort Zuckerman, allows that kind of stuff on a daily basis.

It is despicable.

USA Today did the same thing ..."Bill O'Reilly defended the working conditions slaves faced while building the White House ..."

Another lie. Not surprising from a publication that routinely distorts events, especially on its editorial page.

It is a given that slavery is an abomination, but reporting the story behind Mrs. Obama's very valid points does not diminish the horror of enslavement as these dishonest critics allege.

As any honest historian knows, in order to keep slaves and free laborers strong the Washington administration provided meat, bread and other staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building.

That is a fact not a justification, not a defense of slavery, just a fact.

Anyone who implies a soft on slavery message is beneath contempt.

Some celebrities like Stephen King, Bryan Cranston and Broadway star Audra McDonald immediately sought to exploit the situation on Twitter by buying into the defamation.

We have invited all of them on The Factor.

Place your bets on whether they'll show up.

That phony outrage comes on the heels of another media deception.

Writing in Time Magazine this week liberal columnist Joe Klein says, “Bill O'Reilly - who was busy trying to gin up a race war by blaming Black Lives Matter for the police shootings ...”

Klein using that gross fallacy in a column that calls Republicans a quote "party of hate."

Got a mirror, Joe?

The Factor has reported accurately about Black Lives Matter and the provocations stemming from that group.

But the far-left zealots do not want that reported and despise anyone who does so.

Factor viewer George Bretherton sums up the situation this way:

"O'Reilly, everything you said about how the White House was built is true - according to the White House Historical Association. It is truly sad that intellectual honesty is so rare in today's world."

It's beyond sad, George. It's dangerous.

Propaganda and hate now dominate the media landscape.

And that will be demonstrated in the upcoming presidential campaign.

And that's the memo.

Countering Donald Trump

2016-07-27T04:13:00Z

It is clear that this convention is designed to portray Mr. Trump, who will join us in just a few moments, as a man unworthy of political office.

To me that's kind of a waste of time. Everybody knows Mr. Trump. Even the dimmest among us can formulate an opinion on his worthiness.

What is important is how the Democratic leadership is positioning the party.

Last night Michelle Obama said this:

MICHELLE OBAMA: “That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight. The story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. ((EDIT)) Don't let anyone ever tell you that this country isn't great, that somehow we need to make it great again because this right now is the greatest country on earth.”

So the first lady is directly repudiating the Republican mantra that the USA is in decline.

By the way, I'll deal with Mrs. Obama's slave White House analysis in the Tip of the Day later on.

Senator Elizabeth Warren also spoke last night but had little to say other than Trump is bad and Hillary is good.

Senator Warren continues to like socialism, as well.

But not as much as Bernie Sanders -- the socialist standard-bearer -- who's a bit disappointed the way the whole thing turned out.

BERNIE SANDERS: “I understand that many people here in this convention hall and around the country are disappointed about the final results of the nominating process. I think it's fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am. But to all of our supporters - here and around the country - I hope you take enormous pride in the historical accomplishments we have achieved.”

Talking Points is not sure what historical accomplishments have been achieved, but it is kind of stunning that about 43% of Democratic Primary voters want a socialist in the White House.

Again, that's not an accomplishment. That's a mystery.

To be sure, Bernie Sanders is not a phony; he's honest.

But he would absolutely take over the private economy, telling each and every American what they can make and what they can't make.

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is history for the moment and Hillary Clinton has received her party's nomination for president.

The first American woman in history to do so.

Like her or not, that is an accomplishment.

But whether she can effectively counter Donald Trump is all that matters right now.

And that's the memo.

Trump vs. Obama: A Vision of America

2016-07-26T04:08:00Z

According to the uber-liberal New York Times, Donald Trump's keynote address last week was designed to terrify voters.

TRUMP: “The irresponsible rhetoric of our president, who has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color, has made America a more dangerous environment than frankly I have ever seen. ((EDIT)) The problems we face now - poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad - will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them in the first place.”

But President Obama does not buy Mr. Trump's allegations; instead he paints an optimistic picture:

OBAMA: “But it's also important for the American people to remember that our crime rate in this country is much lower than it was in the '80s or the '90s or when I first took office, that immigration rates are substantially lower than they were when Ronald Reagan was president, that, as serious as these terrorist attacks are, the fact of the matter is, is that the American people are significantly more safe now than they were before all the work that we have done since 9/11.”

Talking Points is in business to put forth the truth so here it is.

According to an average of polling by Real Clear Politics, 69% of Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country.

Just 23% are happy with the present condition of the USA.

That is a direct repudiation of President Obama's point of view.

Because if we are all safer and the economy is fine, why would the folks feel the country is on the wrong track?

The perception problem is two-fold: Americans believe that a stagnant economy is making it very difficult for workers to increase their salaries.

The majority of Americans also believe that disorder both at home and around the world is putting them in danger.

Donald Trump has capitalized on those sentiments, saying he will make things better.

Hillary Clinton seems to mostly support President Obama's vision, but does acknowledge the economic problem.

HILLARY CLINTON: “I want an economy that gets back to raising incomes for everybody. Most Americans haven't had a raise. I want an economy that's going to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Because, given the great recession, we have fallen back in the wrong direction.”

But the great recession was nearly nine years ago. I mean, come on, by this time the American economic engine should be roaring.

Instead growth this year is estimated to be below two percent -- that is dismal.

There are three new polls in the Trump-Clinton race.

CNN has it 48-45 Trump, so he got a bounce out of the Republican Convention last week.

CBS has it 44-43 Trump, a statistical tie.

And the Los Angeles Times has it 45-41 Trump over Clinton.

So despite all the controversy surrounding Donald Trump, if the election were held today he might very well win.

However, to be fair, perhaps Hillary Clinton will get a bounce out of her convention this week.

Now back to the problems.

Higher taxes and massive income redistribution will not stimulate the economy, so Mrs. Clinton is going to have to deal with that and separate herself from the Obama machine.

Many in the Democratic Party support open borders -- that means the consequences of illegal drug importation, illegal aliens committing crimes and higher competition for low wage jobs will continue.

It'll be interesting to see if any Democrat puts forth a specific solution to deal with illegal immigration this week.

On the foreign front President Obama's decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq directly led to the rise of ISIS.

The president's failure to attack ISIS on the ground has allowed the savages to expand their influence.

Mr. Obama's failure to destroy Assad's air force in Syria when he could have after drawing a red line over poison gas has directly led to millions of refugees storming into Europe.

That crisis has profoundly damaged the region and perhaps even stimulated Great Britain to leave the European Union.

President Obama's failure to confront Putin in Russia has directly led to chaos in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

The Iranian nuke deal has increased the power of the mullahs in the Middle East.

The Libya debacle has given ISIS a foothold in that country.

The Chinese are expanding in southeast Asia.

Afghanistan is now a sanctuary not only for the Taliban but also for ISIS terrorists who killed 80 people over the weekend in Kabul.

The list goes on.

Back home race relations are worse than at any time since the 1960s.

In some areas police and young black men even fear for their lives.

The far-left has run wild under President Obama, selling a narrative that America is a bad country dominated by white supremacy.

Drug use is skyrocketing even as the Obama administration puts forth that criminals who sell poison like heroin, meth and cocaine are non-violent and deserve leniency.

Political correctness is destroying free speech and giving power to charlatans who are clogging the court system with frivolous law suits.

Again, Talking Points could go on for hours.

So Donald Trump may be terrifying voters with his rhetoric, but his warnings are based in reality, are they not?

Foreign and domestic terrorism is a contagion that is not being effectively confronted.

Americans understand that all our lives have been changed. It is now routine to see innocent people slaughtered.

Now all of what I have just laid out is in-stone truth.

No spin.

And that has led to the rise of a strong-man politician, Donald Trump.

The Democratic Convention this week will seek to counter Mr. Trump.

We'll see if it succeeds.

And that's the memo.

The Cruz vs. Trump Dustup

2016-07-22T03:10:00Z

RNC Drama: That is the subject of this evening's talking points memo.

At 9:32 eastern time, Senator Ted Cruz took the convention stage to deliver a speech. He was given a standing ovation by the GOP loyalists in the crowd. At first the senator's speech was standard issue – basically that the country needs to be revitalized and the Democratic Party is the devil.

But by the end of the speech, the Republican faithfuls were waiting for an endorsement -- but it didn't come.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): "If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution. ((LONG BOOS , LOUD CHANTS OF 'ENDORSE TRUMP!')) I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation.))"

To make matters worse, Donald Trump entered the convention hall while Cruz was still speaking - completely stealing the spotlight from him.

So it didn't take long for the controversy to get white hot:

REP. PETER KING (R-NY): "Tonight is the Ted Cruz I have known, unfortunately. He cannot be trusted and he's not a true Republican, not a true conservative. He's totally self-centered. I never saw such outrage on the floor."

CRUZ: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father ((applause)) And that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say 'thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father.))"

Talking Points believes that Senator Cruz was wrong to deliver his speech if he was not going to outwardly support Donald Trump.

In addition, Mr. Trump was magnanimous in allowing Cruz to have a featured spot.The Trump campaign says it knew Cruz was not going to endorse but allowed him to speak anyway. So it looks like Donald Trump is the good guy here. Remember - he did not have to give Ted Cruz 24 minutes of prime time exposure at the convention.

Now I understand the bad blood between Cruz and Trump. I understand the personal attacks. They are not easy to forgive. But you don't show up if you are not comfortable with endorsing the candidate.

Governor John Kasich is taking a lot of heat for not being here at the convention in Cleveland.But in his conscience, Kasich could not endorse Trump so he stayed away.Ted Cruz should have done the same thing.

And that's the memo

The Presidential Race and Race in America

2016-07-20T21:49:00Z

A brand new poll from Monmouth University asks, “Have race relations in the USA.become better or worse since Barack Obama became president?”

Ten percent say better, 53% say worse, 33% say there’s been no change.

Next question, “Do you think that racial and ethnic discrimination in the USA is a problem?”

Sixty-eight percent say it’s a big problem, 12% say it’s a small problem, 10% say it’s not a problem.

Then, “Has Black Lives Matter made racial issues in America better or worse?”

Ten percent say better, 48% say worse, 36% say things haven’t changed much.

According to all the polls, Donald Trump is dominating among white male voters but not doing that well in the black and Hispanic precincts.

Here's a breakdown of voting patterns last time around:

In 2012, 72% of the ballots cast were white voters. 13% were black. 10% were Hispanic and just 3% were Asian.

Voter turnout among white voters was 64%.

Sixty-seven percent of black voters turned out, no doubt because Barack Obama was on the ballot. Among Hispanic voters, 48% showed up. Forty-seven percent for Asians.

Right now, there are about 11 million more eligible voters than there were in 2012. Almost 75% of those new voters are minorities – that’s a sign of how the USA is changing demographically.

For Donald Trump to win he has to turn out the white vote in great numbers. If he does that, he can live with 20% or less of the minority vote.

And it is obvious at this convention and by the Trump strategy itself that his campaign believes white voters will put him in the White House.

All of this sounds kind of ominous, that you have an election pitting whites against minorities, and Talking Points wishes that were not the case but it is.

This time around many white voters feel aggrieved. They feel that the Obama administration is not looking out for them, thus the rise of Donald Trump.

In the end, voter turnout will make the difference.

Hillary Clinton will have to stimulate much support in the minority communities because the rise of Trump has already demonstrated that white working men in particular are on his side in great numbers.

And that's the memo.

How Donald Trump Can Indeed Win the Presidency

2016-07-20T03:33:00Z

Take a look at the Electoral College map for 2012 when Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes and Mitt Romney 206. Remember that 270 are needed to get the big job.

In order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Trump would have to win all the states that Romney won and add at least three more large states. That will not be easy because west of the Mississippi, Trump does not play as well as he does in the east. So states like Arizona and Utah - which Romney carried - may be competitive.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, John Brabender, a Republican strategist, says that Trump's presidential hopes hinge on winning in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

According to recent polls, all of those states are in play. Trump could win them.

If Donald Trump prevails in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida and can fight off Hillary Clinton west of the Mississippi, he'll be president.

If Mr. Trump wins New York - which he thinks he can do - he will take up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue.

However New York is a very tough state for Republicans with so many minority voters.

The Trump card - pardon the pun - is anxiety. Most Americans are not happy with the direction their country has taken. In fact in a recent Associated Press poll 79% of Americans say they are frustrated with the country for various reasons.

If anxiety grows, and it well could with terror attacks, police assassinations and a very shaky economy, Trump will get stronger and will capitalize on the disenchantment.

That's because Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate pretty much pledged to carrying on President Obama's policies.

Other recent polling has the race tied between Trump and Clinton. But as Talking Points has pointed out, those polls mean little at this point.

The debates begin in September and that will mean everything. But Donald Trump does have a chance a real chance to become President on the United States.

Trump vs. Hillary with Bernie Sanders Thrown In

2016-07-14T00:04:00Z

As you may know, Senator Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday.

He was perspiring heavily as he did it, but I guess it was hot up in the “Live Free or Die” State.

The endorsement doesn't really mean very much. The Democratic Party has already coalesced behind Secretary Clinton and it's all about voter turnout for her.

If she gets Barack Obama-type enthusiasm, she has a very good chance to win.

If she does not, Donald Trump could pull an upset.

That's because the Democratic Party has veered sharply left thanks to Senator Sanders.

Here now his vision for America:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): “This election is about the leadership we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform and repair a broken criminal justice system. ((EDIT)) It's about making sure that young people in this country are in good schools or at good jobs, not in jail cells. ((EDIT)) Secretary Clinton understands that we don't need to have more people in jail than any other country on earth, at an expense of $80 billion a year.”

So if you break that statement down, Sanders wants amnesty for all illegal aliens presently in the USA. All of them, amnesty.

He also wants quasi-open borders. He does not really want to stop people from coming here illegally.

The Factor could not find one, not one specific statement made by Bernie Sanders that dealt with inhibiting illegal immigration, although he says he wants to prevent it - whatever that means.

Sanders supports sanctuary cities and opposes Kate's Law.

On the economic front, the senator wants guaranteed jobs for every American and guaranteed wages.

That was apparent when he said this:

SANDERS: “Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all of the new wealth and income to the top one percent. ((EDIT)) Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty.”

So if you do work 40 hours, you should be guaranteed a wage that would allow you a comfortable life, according to Bernie Sanders.

That kind of mandate is a violation of the free marketplace. And if the feds start paying mandatory wages, America's economy would collapse.

On the crime and punishment front, Sanders wants little punishment.

He believes that providing people with jobs is the solution to violent crime.

He rejects harsh mandatory punishments for people who kill, rape, or maim.

He believes the U.S. justice system unfairly targets minorities for prosecution.

Now there is no question that Bernie Sanders is an extremist, but he's up front about it.

He calls himself a Socialist. He does not shy away from demanding the American people receive trillions of dollars in entitlements, including free public college education and free health care.

So Hillary Clinton has an interesting dilemma. Will she repudiate any of this far-left stuff or will she embrace it?

She does have a fallback because the media will not define the real radicalism that Sanders wants, instead treating him like a first-cousin to the Colonel Sanders, a benevolent seller of chicken.

In other words, the press does not tell us the truth.

Shocking.

Talking Points believes Hillary Clinton is not as radical as Bernie Sanders, but the Democratic Party is certainly heading into the world of radicalism.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and, even to some extent, Barack Obama, all hold views far to the left of mainstream America.

So the presidential election in November is about much more than Trump vs. Clinton. It's about what kind of country you want.

America is in trouble. All the polls say the folks know that, yet the Democrats continue to march leftward.

Even for those of you who do not like Donald Trump, that has to be a consideration when you cast your ballot in November.

And that's the memo.

President Obama and Race

2016-07-13T03:45:00Z

Today in Dallas, Mr. Obama addressed the world, trying to calm racial tension in the USA.

OBAMA: “Scripture tells us that in our sufferings, there is glory. Because we know that suffering producers perseverance. Perseverance, character. And character, hope.”

All of that is true but it is also rhetorical. And while the president is trying to lift spirits, we do need some targeted programs in America to tamp down racial animosity.

The president hit a high note and a dubious note.

First the good:

OBAMA: “We’re going to have to be honest with each other and ourselves. We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn.”

Very well put by the president.

But then Mr. Obama veered away from the present and into the land of grievance.

OBAMA: “We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation and Jim Crow, they simply didn’t vanish at the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Doctor King made a speech or the voting rights act or civil rights act were signed. “

The president went on to say that race relations have quote "improved dramatically in my lifetime.” But raising the specter of slavery and Jim Crow gives the haters an excuse and fuels the grievance industry.

If we are ever to become one nation under God, we will have to put the grievances behind us and not use them as an excuse for bad behavior.

That means acceptance of past sins and a determination to never let mass discrimination happen again.

To some extent the president understands this, but he is not powerful enough in stating it.

Instead he dwells on the problem rather than the solution.

OBAMA: “But America, we know that bias remains. We know it. Whether you are black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our lives at some point.”

The truth is bias will always be with us. Every country has it. From the dawn of mankind, unfair treatment has occurred.

Americans should all be in this together. But we are not. What we really need is a federal government to create laws that are fair and make sure they are enforced without prejudice.

It won't be easy, but it's possible.

And that's the memo.

The Responsibility that Comes with Protest

2016-07-12T03:27:00Z

If you have been watching “Legends & Lies: The Patriots,” you can see how effective protests against the British were in the American colonies.

In fact, protest led directly to the freedoms we have today.

The civil rights marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a pacifist, were also very effective in mobilizing public opinion against Jim Crow laws and bias in general.

Dr. King got a lot accomplished before he was assassinated.

Now we have another protest situation in the USA whereby many African-Americans feel that law enforcement works actively against them:

NEWT GINGRICH: “If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively underestimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.”

Mr. Gingrich is essentially correct. Skin color is a very personal situation.

Every one of my black friends has felt diminished at times because of their complexions.

It's wrong. There's no excuse for it. But it happens in every country.

Enter American law enforcement, which is now under siege for allegedly treating black Americans more harshly than white Americans.

Talking Points does not believe there is a designed campaign of prejudice.

What is happening here is cause and effect because black Americans commit far more crimes proportionally than whites or other ethnic groups, they come into contact with police more often.

And that contact sometimes turns volatile.

However the key stat in the USA is that less than 2% of all police-civilian interactions result in any kind of physical confrontation.

That is extremely low.

The issue of incarceration again deals with crime.

The inner-city drug traffic and the violence that comes along with it has put American police agencies and law-abiding civilians in a dangerous place.

It is no surprise that black and Hispanic drug traffickers are arrested and incarcerated.

Their numbers are greater, proportionally, than white drug traffickers.

Now back to the protests.

The key group driving violence on the streets is Black Lives Matter.

After five police officers were killed in Dallas, a Black Lives Matter organizer -- Sir Maejor -- said this according to the Associated Press:

"Black Lives Matter doesn't condone shooting law enforcement. But I have to be honest: I understand why it was done. I don't encourage it, I don't condone it, I don't justify it. But I understand it."

That is provocative in the extreme. Understanding terrorism, which is what happened in Dallas, is not difficult.

You get an evil human being who kills people, a five-year-old can understand it.

Maejor says he doesn't condone it, so what's the point of understanding it?

Again, a ridiculous, irresponsible statement.

But we have come to expect that kind of thing from the Black Lives Matter crew, which chanted about police here in New York City “Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon.”

Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to understand the vitriol.

OBAMA: “In a movement like Black Lives Matter, there's always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid, or imprudent, or overgeneralized, or harsh. And I don't think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest sight.”

With all due respect to the president, well-meaning activists do not associate themselves with a group that often commits violent acts and encourages violence through irresponsible rhetoric.

Dr. King would not participate in Black Lives Matter.

Of course the liberal American media is largely sympathetic to the street demonstrations, even if they do turn violent.

How many more times are we going to have to see Black Lives Matter protesters destroy stuff?

How many more times?

Yet if you criticize that group, you are branded a bigot by some far-left media precincts.

Do you know that shortly after the Dallas police were murdered, a cop in Missouri was shot and critically wounded by a black man?

The St. Louis County police chief says it was an assassination attempt.

The accused shooter, 31-year-old Antonio Taylor, has a long rap sheet. He's a thug.

In Minnesota, another police officer was hit in the head by a concrete brick thrown by a protester on Saturday night. You guessed it, the demonstration was organized by Black Lives Matter.

So again, Mr. President you might want to back away from protesters who believe violence is acceptable.

Summing up, want to protest good?

Make sure you have your facts straight.

And don't hurt anybody or destroy anything.

And that's the memo.

Murdering Cops in Dallas

2016-07-09T05:12:00Z

In a vicious act of domestic terrorism, five Dallas police officers were shot dead, seven others wounded, when a hidden terrorist armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle and a handgun targeted cops at a peaceful demonstration.

Police say 25-year-old Micah Johnson, a vet who served in Afghanistan, planned his mass murder after hearing reports of two black men shot dead by police earlier this week.

We'll get to those incidents in a moment.

Johnson, the terrorist, was killed when police unleashed an explosive device.

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF DAVID BROWN: “The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb. The reporting that the suspect killed himself is not accurate. We have confirmed that he's been deceased because of the detonation of the bomb. Our hostage negotiator did an exceptional job getting this suspect to talk before he died during the hours of negotiating that eventually broke down. ((EDIT)) The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

At this point, investigators say Johnson was not a member of Black Lives Matter or any other radical group.

There were three other people taken into custody but police now believe they were not associates of Johnson - that he acted alone.

Speaking from Poland President Obama said this:

OBAMA: “Let me just say that even as yesterday I spoke about our need to be concerned, as all Americans, about racial disparities in our criminal justice system, I also said yesterday that our police have an extraordinarily difficult job and the vast majority of them do their job in outstanding fashion.”

Talking Points believes the vast majority of American law enforcement are honorable people. Less than two percent of all interactions involve any kind of force by the cops.

However, there are too many incidents where minority Americans are being killed or hurt over low-level beefs.

That's the truth, and law enforcement leadership must compel their own agencies to act with restraint.

I support the police and do not believe they are targeting blacks in general. The statistics show that.

But again, fatal mistakes are unacceptable and there are too many of them.

If you watched The Factor last night, you did not see analysis of police in Minnesota killing 32-year-old Philando Castile in a traffic stop.

On Wednesday we did cover the police killing of 37-year-old Alton Sterling in Louisiana. But we used restraint in our report with Martha MacCallum because all the facts are not in.

I didn't do the Minnesota story at all because facts were sparse but emotions white hot - just like Ferguson.

Any thinking person had to know hate was in the air:

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: “You don't have to be a black man in America to know we have a serious problem with police killing black men.”

((EDIT))

SPIKE LEE, FILMMAKER: “We're in the 21st century of high-tech lynching.”

((EDIT))

CNN'S JOHN BERMAN: “Do you think African-Americans are being hunted?”

SPIKE LEE: “Yes, facts don't lie.”

((EDIT))

BAKARI SELLERS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: “I mean you're literally getting death sentences in this country for being African-American ((EDIT)) I trust law enforcement to a certain degree, but my question is, can you please stop killing us?”

But even worse than those provocateurs was the Governor of Minnesota:

Saint Paul, MN Thursday

GOV. MARK DAYTON (D-MN): “Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver and the passenger were white? I don't think it would have. So I'm forced to confront and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront, this kind of racism exists. And that it's incumbent upon all of us to vow that we're going to do whatever we can to see it doesn't happen it doesn't continue to happen.”

Dayton may be right but you don't throw a rhetorical bomb like that just hours after a horrendous death at the hands of police.

That's just dangerous to law enforcement.

It is Dayton's job to provide calm, not inflame the situation. Huge mistake on his part.

Back to last night.

While the Dallas protest was peaceful, at the same time the Black Lives Matters inflamers in Oakland were doing what they always do.

CBS OAKLAND REPORTER: “The has been some damage here on the side of the police department headquarters, Oakland police. The windows shattered, the red paint thrown about, the words murderers scrawled in that red paint here on the side of the building. ((EDIT)) At the top of the freeway, I’ll have to tell you it’s sort of festive as protesters are making a line, sitting in the middle of traffic. ((EDIT)) Some of the demonstrators actually jumped up on a tractor trailer.”

So here's the truth in summation:

Micah Johnson was a hater and a terrorist.

Black Lives Matter inflames rather than illuminates. It is essentially a "hate America" group.

Law Enforcement leaders should make fair dealings with minority Americans a top priority.

Finally, we as a nation need to fight the racial madness that is harming the USA by being fair ourselves and calling out the haters wherever they may be.

And that's the memo.

Why Republicans and Democrats Tend to Dislike Each Other

2016-07-08T03:56:00Z

There is no question that the upcoming presidential election will be bitter, two polarizing candidates smashing each other with little restraint.

I was thinking about that as the nation celebrated Independence Day. The political divide in America is getting worse with some folks descending into rank hatred.

A recent Pew survey of more than 4,000 Americans defines the situation.

55% of Democrats say the GOP makes them afraid.

49% of Republicans fear the Dems.

70% of Democrats believe Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans.

52% of Republicans feel that way about Dems.

However, 47% of Republicans feel Dems are more immoral than other Americans.

Just 35% of Democrats say GOPers are more immoral.

Talking Points believes the immorality view stems from abortion and liberal views on traditional marriage - two issues many Democrats spotlight.

In some theologies, abortion is a major sin and heterosexual marriage a cornerstone.

Thus, the moral judgment.

The closed-mind deal largely has to do with guns. Many Democrats believe the government should impose tighter restrictions on gun sales and don't understand why gun advocates refuse to compromise.

Just the words "right wing" are enough to cause fear and loathing in many liberals.

But that loathing is shared by conservative Americans who believe that the liberal doctrines of unfettered immigration and political correctness to the point of absurdity are severely damaging the USA.

So both sides are angry, not willing to even consider opposing points of view.

Political anger has always been present in America. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams viciously attacked each other in the campaign of 1800, which Jefferson won.

Today, according to Pew, 86% of Republicans dislike President Obama. 83% of Democrats disagree; they like him a lot.

That kind of a divide feeds a kind of hyper-hatred with cable news, talk radio and the Internet - giving platforms to partisan provocateurs who whip things up with little thought of being fair.

That being said, robust debate is necessary in a free society. But when a debate is won, hatred should not follow.

Things like Kate's Law, confronting the evil jihadists and protecting poor people from murderous gang violence really don't have two sides do they?

There is a right and wrong in this world. Unfortunately today both political parties believe they have a monopoly on right.

But they are wrong.

And that's the memo.

President Obama and Islam

2016-07-06T23:48:00Z

Many Americans, including this one, believe Barack Obama’s emotional attachment to the Muslim world has hurt the USA.

There is no question that the Obama administration's greatest failure is allowing the Islamic terror group ISIS to run wild, murdering thousands of innocent people all over the world, including many Muslims.

Mr. Obama has never acknowledged this mistake, nor does he define the ISIS threat accurately.

That group is killing innocent people in order to impose a radical version of Islam on the world. The jihad is solely based on theology, perverted as it may be.

President Obama, as we all know, will not even use the words Islamic terrorism.

Again today when telling the nation that America will maintain eight-thousand troops in Afghanistan, the president did not accurately describe the situation there, putting forth that it was more about politics than Islamic terror.

OBAMA: “That is why the United States will continue to strongly support an Afghan-led reconciliation process and why we call on all countries in the region to end safe havens for militants and terrorists.”

But they are not just militants and terrorists. They are Islamic-driven killers who protected al Qaeda before 9/11.

Yet the president does not define the terror issue clearly.

Here's why:

Barack Obama’s father, who abandoned his family, was a Muslim who eventually turned atheist.

Then his mother married another Muslim, moving young Barry Obama to Indonesia, where he was exposed to the Islamic world even though he did attend a Catholic school in first grade.

According to his half-sister, Barack Obama attended his half-brother's wedding in the early 1990s. Malik Obama was a Muslim.

The Factor has obtained pictures allegedly from that wedding, which we believe was held in Maryland.

Details on the ceremony, the exact location, and whether the reports that Barack Obama was the best man are difficult to verify at this point.

What we can tell you with certainty is that Barack Obama has deep emotional ties to Islam.

June 4, 2009 – Cairo, Egypt

OBAMA: “As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.”

Now, to some extent, I can identify with President Obama on the religion issue.

As a Roman Catholic, I was appalled when the priest-pedophilia scandal broke.

There is absolutely no excuse for the Catholic Church covering up many horrendous crimes.

However, like Mr. Obama, I do make the distinction between the faith and the people who abuse it.

Nov. 13, 2002

O’REILLY: “The church is not the men who run it. The church is the abiding theology behind the doctrine of Jesus. And the country is the abiding philosophy behind the Constitution. And I think, if everybody understood that, you could put it into perspective.”

But here's where I depart from the president. I went after the American leaders of the Catholic Church with a vengeance.

April 5, 2002

O'REILLY: "As we now know, the leaders of the Catholic Church in America covered up the sexual abuse, at least some of them did. It's my opinion that Cardinal Law in Boston could be arrested and charged with criminal negligence in the matter. Remember, Law admits transferring pedophile priests to places where they had continuing contact with children."

((EDIT))

May 3, 2002

O'REILLY: “American have a right to demand, and I mean demand, that their authorities take care of Cardinal Law, not the Pope, that American authorities take care of a man who aided and abetted the molestation of American children. We have the right, every American citizen, to demand that this Cardinal Law is removed. It's way beyond just Catholics.”

Law was eventually removed but then given a cushy job in Rome - another embarrassment for the Catholic Church.

Barack Obama should do what I did - aggressively call out those who abuse the Muslim faith, who commit atrocities under a religious banner.

He should make defeating the jihad a central issue and stop trying to diminish Islamic terrorism by avoiding the simple truth - radical Islam is a direct threat to the entire world.

Whether they live in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria or Africa, it is Islamic killers who are the central problem on this planet.

President Obama should acknowledge that today and begin to correct his mistakes.

And that's the memo.

No Prosecution of Hillary Clinton

2016-07-06T01:46:00Z

Earlier today, FBI Director James Comey read a long statement regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email and national security.

FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct. Or, indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Mr. Comey was clear in his motivation statement but downplayed the negligence aspect of the case.

Here's a quote from the federal code:

"Whoever, being entrusted with … [national security documents] … through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

“Gross negligence” in handling national security is a felony.

Fox News investigated the statute and found only one case prosecuted under it in 1986, but negligence charges were subsequently dismissed.

So to be fair, Director Comey has legal history on his side. But that will not allay suspicions that the case was decided on politics.

COMEY: “What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

Now you either believe Director Comey or you don't. And no amount of speculation is going to shed more light on his posture.

He says the investigation was clean and that's that.

In his remarks today, Comey also scolded Secretary Clinton in a way that has been rarely seen:

COMEY: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the “Top Secret”/Special Access program level at the time of the time they were sent and received.”

((EDIT))

COMEY: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

((EDIT))

COMEY: “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full time security staff.”

((EDIT))

COMEY: “We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large amount of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s email account.”

Again, that is almost unprecedented and goes directly to the presidential election.

Combined with the chaos in Benghazi, Libya where the American ambassador was murdered, the FBI’s criticism of Hillary Clinton is withering.

You would think Americans would want to elect a person with a record of competency, would you not?

So that gives Donald Trump a big opening because, compared to questions about his competency, the email case blows that right out of the water.

I mean, Trump University?

Come on, no matter what happened there it doesn't come close to the FBI’s scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's email situation.

Now many who support Mrs. Clinton simply don't care. They believe she is better for the country than Donald Trump so issues really don't matter.

Same thing on the other side. Millions of Americans have already convicted Mrs. Clinton of many things. They will never vote for her.

Talking Points is in business to inform and at times reform.

The negligence thing bothers me even if there were no intent to subvert federal law. The subversion happened and Secretary Clinton is directly responsible.

If you the American citizen leave a child in a hot car and that child is harmed, you will be charged with negligence even if the action was unintentional.

Many analysts have pointed to General David Petraeus, who was convicted of a misdemeanor for providing a close friend national security secrets so she could use them in a book.

The difference is Petraeus obviously knew that what he was doing was subverting the law -- he had intent.

One footnote, if I were president I would have pardoned David Petraeus because his service to this country far outweighs his action, as irresponsible as it was.

So by minimizing the negligence issue in the Clinton case, Director Comey puts his agency under scrutiny.

I am not casting aspersions on Comey's honesty. I believe he is a credible man. I don't believe he would tank an investigation.

But the American people are owed a more detailed explanation about negligence that put our national security in jeopardy.

Now to the bigger election picture.

Throughout our history we have elected presidents who have not been honest men.

Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, to some extent Lyndon Johnson, just to name a few.

It is up to each voter to evaluate honesty and competency in a factual, therefore fair way.

Finally it is more than likely that the FBI tipped off President Obama as to what was going to happen today.

That's not to say that Director Comey was working with the president in any way, but the bureau knew Mr. Obama was allowing Hillary Clinton to ride on Air Force One to a campaign event in North Carolina.

So it is inconceivable that the director of the FBI and Attorney General Loretta Lynch would allow that to happen if Hillary Clinton was going to be charged.

Director Comey addressed that today.

COMEY: “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”

That's most likely true; he did not expose his statement, his words.

But just by its silence the FBI sent a message and President Obama read it. That's how things are done in Washington.

Summing up, the FBI says lack of intent to subvert federal law is the reason the agency is not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton.

But Director Comey downplayed the negligence issue and that is very troubling.

And that's the memo.

Finally Some Good News for Kate's Law

2016-07-01T04:12:00Z

The nation was shocked when 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco just about one year ago.

Forty-five-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien from Mexico with seven felony convictions in the USA, is charged with the murder.

Not only was Sanchez allowed to roam the streets by San Francisco authorities, but he had been deported five times and returned illegally six times.

So I proposed Kate's Law, which would incarcerate illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies for at least five years if they were caught defying deportation.

My question - who would oppose that law?

Apparently Senator Harry Reid would and we'll see about the other senators next week.

That's when Kate's Law will finally be offered for a standalone vote in the Senate.

Sixty votes are needed out of 100 to get the law in place for a full vote.

Again, I simply cannot believe any sitting senator would not support Kate's Law and we will tell you exactly who steps up and who doesn't.

By the way, Senators Grassley, McCain, Cruz, Rubio and Sasse have been heroes on this.

Also standing alone next week in the Senate, a new law that would withhold some federal funds from sanctuary cities, places that will not cooperate on federal immigration law.

The bill is sponsored by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and has a lesser chance of success than Kate's Law because so many Democrats are invested in the illegal alien industry.

Now the reason Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is finally getting these two bills to the floor in solo situations is two-fold.

The British vote to leave the EU ramped up the illegal immigration issue.

And the upcoming election in November will mean that any Democrat voting against protecting Americans from violent aliens and cities that harbor them will have to defend that vote when they run against Republican opposition.

It is assumed that all Republican senators will support Kate's Law and the punishment of sanctuary cities.

Summing up, it is simply inconceivable to me that any elected official would vote against harshly punishing violent foreign nationals who defy deportation.

I can't fathom any responsible person doing that.

And if a senator does vote against Kate's Law, we will deal with that person.

On the sanctuary front, again, in order to protect Americans from harm, immigration law must be obeyed.

The issue is not as stark as Kate's Law but it is a litmus test of settled law versus anarchy.

Is it not?

And that's the memo.

You Cannot Contain Evil

2016-06-30T04:12:00Z

No one should be surprised by yesterday's terror attack in Istanbul, Turkey. ISIS suspected, but no matter who committed this atrocity, they are evil.

As stated, President Obama’s policy toward Islamic terrorism is to try and contain it, and -- while speaking -- to avoid the actual description.

Mr. Obama has killed terror leaders with drones, has bombed ISIS facilities in Iraq and Syria, has ordered American special forces to disrupt ISIS activities.

But it's not enough.

The solution to defeating ISIS is to quickly kill as many of them on the ground as possible -- sending a strong message to the world of jihad.

As Talking Points has stated before, NATO -- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- should be leading the charge.

Not the Kurds. Not some phantom coalition that Mr. Obama uses to obscure real action.

The ISIS attack on Paris killed 130.

The terror group's attack on Belgium killed 32.

And now in Turkey, more than 40 people are dead.

All three of those countries are members of NATO.

All three of those attacks are acts of war.

Article five in the NATO charter says an attack on one country is an attack on all.

So why is President Obama not advocating NATO forces on the ground to kill the ISIS savages and protect suffering civilians who are desperate?

Again why is he not promoting that strategy?

The Turkish border is just 50 miles away from the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.

It is long past time for all Americans to understand that ISIS is not going to stop killing innocent people.

And you could be one of them.

It is true that no matter what action is taken against the jihadists, terrorism will not stop. It's impossible to wipe it out entirely.

But it is not that difficult to run these savages out of their sanctuaries.

But the president will not do that:

OBAMA: “Groups like ISIL can't destroy us, they can't defeat us. They don't produce anything. They're not an existential threat to us.”

((EDIT))

OBAMA: “Our mission is to destroy ISIL. Since I last updated the American people on our campaign two months ago, we've seen that this continues to be a difficult fight -- but we are making significant progress.”

Today Mr. Obama spoke about the ISIS attack in Istanbul, saying we stand with the people of Turkey.

More empty rhetoric.

We don't stand with anyone. We will not do what is necessary to defeat this evil.

The ISIS battle should be a major presidential campaign issue. If Hillary Clinton is going to continue the policies of Barack Obama, every American should know that.

On the other side, Donald Trump needs to get very specific about his plan to defeat ISIS and the jihad.

He should spell it out.

And that's the memo.

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Report

2016-06-29T01:14:00Z

First off, the terror attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012 was an act of war.

Yet the Obama administration does not see it that way; only one person is currently under arrest for the action.

From the beginning the attack was marginalized, first described as a spontaneous uprising against Americans, then spun as partisan politics.

Talking Points would like to lay out the truth tonight.

The Republican congressional report has concluded the following:

That almost immediately after American Ambassador Christopher Stevens came under attack, State Department officials in Washington knew exactly what was happening.

Greg Hicks, a State Department official in Libya, was talking to D.C. and says there was no discussion about any video prompting the terror attack.

It was quickly apparent that the terrorists were organized and those Libyans hired to protect the ambassador had run away.

Then hours after Ambassador Stevens was murdered there was a big meeting in the White House.

But approximately half that meeting was spent on politics, not trying to get American assets into Libya to protect the remaining Americans there.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he ordered the military to go to Libya, but that did not happen.

Panetta says President Obama and Secretary Clinton agreed with his order.

It is unclear why the military did not carry out Panetta’s mandate, and President Obama did not order an investigation to find out.

But here's the worst part: Even though President Obama did not himself say videos caused the terror attack, his ambassador to the UN did say that.

Sept. 16, 2012

SUSAN RICE, THEN-US AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: “What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video.”

And Ambassador Rice's statement was not corrected by the White House.

Summing up, the Republican report says the federal government failed to protect Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were murdered and that the Obama administration misled the world after the fact.

Now to the Democratic side of the House committee.

Their report is strange to say the least.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, about as partisan a man as there is in the House, led the Democratic response.

It says the following.

That Democrats on the committee still do not know what motivated the terror attack. They still will not concede the video thing was a ruse.

That Obama administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements, even though Ambassador Rice obviously did not put forth the truth.

Maybe she was misled by her superiors, but again, the White House did not order an investigation to find that out and the committee Democrats do not seem to have a problem not knowing what exactly happened.

And finally, that even though the State Department's security measures were quote "woefully inadequate," Secretary Clinton had nothing to do with that.

Wow, quite the conclusion.

Talking Points is not blaming Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, but certainly any fair-minded person knows that the Obama administration has consistently downplayed terror attacks.

Fort Hood, Orlando and Benghazi.

Explanations: workplace violence, gun-driven domestic terrorism and videos.

Come on.

The question going forward, will this hurt Hillary Clinton in her run for the presidency?

The answer is speculative but the facts say this:

Those who support Mrs. Clinton are not going to turn against her over Benghazi.

Those who despise the secretary already believe she mismanaged Libya.

In the middle, aimless Americans who kind of wander around not really knowing anything.

Are they likely to pay attention to the Benghazi report?

No. They are not.

So, will Benghazi hurt Hillary Clinton?

Most likely not.

And that's the memo.

Open Borders Don't Work

2016-06-28T03:13:00Z

The vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union was not really about macroeconomics. It was largely an emotional decision based on what folks are seeing with their own eyes, that open borders and mass immigration have directly affected their lives and not for the better.

Entire cities have changed as millions of foreign born people have poured into Britain, making full use of the public health and education systems, establishing vast neighborhoods that mostly reflect their origins, not traditional British culture.

Most of the immigrants are good people simply seeking better lives for their families. There is no question that life in England, or the USA for that matter, is far better, generally speaking, than in Africa, the Middle East or South Asia.

Liberals are correct in saying that it is compassionate to give suffering people a lifeline. But their numbers are so great that it's impossible for even wealthy nations to absorb the flow.

So many problems ensue from open borders that people are saying "no more."

That is not racist, or nationalistic, or inhumane. It is an opinion based on social order and rejecting a total breakdown of immigration supervision.

Once you get to Europe, you can move without hindrance. After settling in you can then receive entitlements paid for by workers of your new country.

In England, foreign-born newcomers can use government run medical services, which are already strained. The wait to treat maladies is catastrophic in some places.

The vote last week demonstrates that the majority in Great Britain believe their lives are worse under the E.U. umbrella.

Fast shift to America, where the open-border issue is one of the big reasons that Donald Trump has prospered.

He is by far the most aggressive politician in promoting border regulation and a slowdown in the entry of foreign-born individuals.

For this he has been demonized, branded a racist by the left.

But millions of Americans don't see it that way. They are backing Trump because he is talking tough about a situation they believe is truly deplorable.

That being said, Mr. Trump would be wise to stop identifying specific groups of people, like Muslims and Mexicans, because that kind of scapegoating dilutes the larger issue that the rule of law, as well as common sense, has collapsed in the immigration debate.

What is not widely known is that many in the Democratic Party and in the liberal press actually want open borders in the USA even though they won't come right out and say it.

Recently, John Kerry slipped in a commencement speech at Northeastern University:

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: "You are the most diverse class in Northeastern's history. In other words, you are Donald Trump's worst nightmare (APPLAUSE) (EDIT) You're about to graduate into a complex and borderless world."

Well, most Americans are not ready for a borderless world and never will be.

In this age of terror it is simply too dangerous.

In this time of massive debt, it is far too expensive for any country to absorb millions of poor people year after year.

Think about it. Which Democrat has called for strict border security, or ending Sanctuary cities, or even harshly punishing felonious illegal aliens who defy deportation?

Has President Obama done that? Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders?

The answer is no.

In fact a Sanders supporter recently came clean on the Factor.

From The Factor, June 9:

ERICA PAYNE, BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTER: "There is a fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives when it comes to people visiting this country. Progressives think that people move in order to build better lives for their families."
O'REILLY: "And you're okay with anybody -"
PAYNE: "-- our country."
O'REILLY: "Any time they want?"
PAYNE: "I'm perfectly okay with anybody who wants to be a constructive part of this country -"
O'REILLY: "Anybody? No matter how many of them."
PAYNE: "-- to come here and live and work."
O'REILLY: "Okay."
PAYNE: "We can handle it, Bill. This is the greatest country in the world."

But the greatest country in the world is growing weaker. We owe $20 trillion.

Entitlement spending, now at the 50% level for American households. Half of us are getting subsidized to some extent and migrant families are at that level as well.

No longer is the USA a self-reliant society. We are growing more dependent every month.

And that is sapping America's greatness.

The truth is that Democrats believe they need the immigrant vote to achieve and retain power.

Therefore there is no motivation to stop illegal immigration and impose discipline in obeying the law.

Talking Points firmly believes that most Americans welcome foreign born people who come here the legal way. There is not a prevailing nativist sentiment in America.

In fact, it's the opposite. Foreign-born Americans are generally hard workers - loyal to their new country and that is widely admired.

But the folks have had enough with lax border security, amnesty, and the failure of Congress to pass basic protections like Kate's Law.

The left believes it is noble to promote policies that are "inclusive," as they say in San Francisco.

But while they are feeling good about themselves, anarchy has taken root, resources stretched to the limit and a kind of illegal immigrant apartheid is now on display in certain parts of our country.

When scores of major cities say "blank" you to federal authorities, refusing even to detain criminal aliens, you know the breaking point has been reached.

So most Americans are fed up and, given the chance to vote like the British, that frustration would become apparent.

Come Election Day it may be the "economy, stupid" but a close second will be the government's responsibility to protect us from terrorism and chaos.

We need to crack down on illegal immigration and those who undermine federal law.

America needs a sane policy when it comes to admitting non-citizens.

And we need strong leadership to deliver it.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump Seeking to Destroy Hillary Clinton

2016-06-23T04:08:00Z

Speaking in New York City this morning, Mr. Trump delivered a major address, accusing Hillary Clinton of corruption and incompetence:

DONALD TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved and gays put to death. Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department. Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency of the United States.”

Mr. Trump, reading from a teleprompter, scorched the former secretary of state for wanting to admit Syrian and Iraqi refugees - some of whom Trump believes are jihadists. Thus the reference to enslaved women and gays.

A broad rhetorical stroke, but one that his supporters relish hearing.

Trump then got specific about the terror attack in Benghazi that killed a U.S Ambassador:

TRUMP: “Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security. They were desperate. They needed help. Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all. She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die. To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about the video being the cause of his death.”

The speech lasted about forty minutes and featured something new:

TRUMP: “Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters. These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account directly while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States. Tell me folks, does that work? She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing.”

The Factor checked out that allegation, and it is based solely on a book unfavorable to the Clintons. Fox News cannot confirm the data Mr. Trump used independently.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton pounded Trump yesterday -- you saw some of that on The Factor last night -- and continued today in North Carolina:

HILLARY CLINTON: “I guess my speech yesterday must have gotten under his skin because right away he lashed out on Twitter with outlandish lies and conspiracy theories. He did the same in his speech today. Now think about it: He’s going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance (APPLAUSE).”

Summing up, the opening campaign salvos are harsh and likely will get even more intense as we move toward November.

And that's the memo.

The Clinton-Trump Race Intensifies

2016-06-22T04:26:00Z

Speaking in Ohio today Hillary Clinton portrayed her opponent Donald Trump as a charlatan in business and perhaps even a crook.

HILLARY CLINTON: “He’s been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits in the last 30 years. A large number were filed by ordinary Americans and small businesses that did work for Trump and never got paid. Painters, waiters, plumbers. People who needed the money and didn’t get it – not because he couldn’t pay them but because he could stiff them. ((EDIT)) My late father was a small business man. If his customers did what Trump did, my dad would never have made it so I take this personally.”

Strong words.

Almost immediately Mr. Trump responded on Instagram.

TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton’s only right about one thing: I understand debt and how to handle it. I’ve made a fortune with debt. But debt for this country is a disaster, and Obama has piled it on, and she’s been there watching."

Now we can expect stuff like this almost daily until November. Some of it will be headache-inducing.

Tomorrow Donald Trump makes a speech in New York City, and you know he's going to hammer Mrs. Clinton on economics.

Both candidates understand that right now the race is fairly close and that has to worry Secretary Clinton.

A new CNN poll has Clinton ahead of Trump 47 - 42 among registered voters.

However, in Ohio a Quinnipiac poll shows the race is tied 40-40.

In Pennsylvania it's just about tied as well -- Clinton 42, Trump 41.

In Florida Clinton leads trump 47-39.

Donald Trump needs to win all three of those states, and his polling has been going south for the last three weeks.

But Trump remains very competitive in Pennsylvania, which has recently been a Democratic stronghold.

And even though he's lost some ground in Florida, that state is fluid. Trump won big there in the Republican primary.

So Hillary Clinton knows she has a lot of work to do to defeat Mr. Trump, who has made major mistakes but is still in the game.

Talking Points believes that the conventions will not be very influential, meaning not a lot of minds are going to be changed there.

The big event will be the first presidential debate on September 26th in Dayton, Ohio.

Whoever wins that debate is likely to be president, especially if they win it decisively.

The other debates will not matter as much.

Polls say about 22% of Americans have not made up their minds yet. That is a low number this far away from Election Day.

But that 22% will decide things.

And that's the memo.

Terrorism and the American Left

2016-06-21T01:23:00Z

Well I finally figured it out after thinking about it all weekend. I believe I know why some committed left wingers constantly diminish the terror threat from ISIS.

Before I tell you the reason, I want to spotlight something that happened last week.

Congressman Jim Clyburn, a very liberal guy from South Carolina, put forth an amazing analysis of the Orlando terror attack, to which I replied:

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): “This gentleman, it now being revealed, had a lot of hate. And it seems that some of it was self-hate. And consequently this is not about ISIS, this is not any kind of foreign terror, this is about guns in America and whether or not we’re going to have some kind of moderation to this Second Amendment just as we have to the First Amendment.”

((EDIT))

O’REILLY: “He gets all, ‘It’s not about terrorism, it’s about gun control.’ And I just want to slap him, with all due respect. What it is going to take? Do the ISIS people have to come to your backyard, do they have to put you in a cage? Because they will.”

I used the slap line as a rhetorical device to show my displeasure.

That was obvious, unless you're a moron.

But the crazy left websites who routinely mislead their readers played it as a physical threat.

A few hours later the Congressional Black Caucus demanded an apology.

I very politely said come on The Factor and we'll talk about it. I invited Congressman Clyburn on, as well.

Guess what? They are hiding under their desks. I guess they're afraid I would slap them.

So here's the deal. We researched the congressman and could find no mention of gun control in connection with the Chicago violence.

None.

This weekend 13 more people shot to death in the Windy City, at least 43 others wounded including a three-year-old boy.

That brings the total to about 1,800 human beings shot so far this year in Chicago.

Paging Congressman Clyburn.

Come on, if he were truly concerned about guns in America, he'd have to at least say something, his fellow African-Americans being shot down in Chicago every day.

Would he not?

Now the reason Clyburn brought up guns in conjunction with Orlando is because the left in general does not want the American people to focus on the danger from ISIS, a Muslim-hate group.

That does not play into the narrative of the far left who believe that America is the source of much of the trouble in the world.

They constantly push a point of view that demonizes America as a bad place, an unfair place.

So forget about ISIS, it's all about the USA allowing guns to kill people.

Refocusing the overseas terror problem on the USA is a strategy.

Summing up, thousands of African-Americans are being gunned down by other African-Americans in Chicago, which has very strict gun control laws.

Yet Congressman Clyburn has no comment.

Yet he has plenty to say about guns, not ISIS, being the real problem in Orlando.

You make the call.

And that's the memo.

Why the Presidential Campaign is so Difficult to Cover

2016-06-16T07:57:00Z

The latest polling has Donald Trump's unfavorable number at about 70%.

Hillary Clinton clocks in at just under 60 percent unfavorable.

That's why I believe we may have a low voter turnout in November.

In the meantime, I have to cover this race in the fairest way possible.

That means: no cheap shots, no gotcha stuff, no personal attacks on either candidate.

But it also means skepticism about what Trump and Clinton say and do, and challenges to their positions.

But with so many Americans not liking the candidates, the concept of fair-play is hard to pull off.

The left wants to demonize Trump, and if you don't do that, you are in the tank for him ... and a very bad person.

The right wants to hammer Secretary Clinton on everything, and if you don't do that, you are selling out ... and a very bad person.

Also: if you don't openly root for a candidate, you become suspect in the eyes of their followers.

This year ... it is very personal.

Today on Good Morning America, George Stephanopolous asked me about some Republicans who will not support Trump.

That's a standard question from the national media.

I said it was style,, not substance, that is fueling GOP dissent.

It is the way Donald Trump bluntly states his case that has alienated many.

But if you want to tell the truth, and I do, the no-prisoners approach is why Trump is the nominee. He has rallied voters who are fed up with politics as usual.

Now, is that analysis fair?

Of course it is.

But many will condemn me because I did not condemn Trump.

Same thing with Hillary Clinton and President Obama.

If you don't despise everything they do, then you are misguided.

And if you do criticize them, then you are a conservative zealot.

Right now politics in the USA ... is dysfunctional.

Here's a big headline today ... shortly after the Orlando terror attack ... Mr. Obama said this:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Since I last updated the American people on our campaign two months ago, we’ve seen that this continues to be a difficult fight -- but we are making significant progress. ((EDIT)) This campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the terror war battlefield.

Today, just two days after Mr. Obama's optimistic statement, the director of the CIA said this:

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses on territory, manpower and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.

Mr. Brennan is absolutely correct in his assessment ... Mr. Obama is far too short-sighted on ISIS.

Again ... that is the truth, but the truth will not be accepted by Obama devotees.

Same thing with Hillary.

Same thing with Trump.

Prove all of them wrong, and they are at times, and you will be attacked as a false messenger.

Summing up ... no longer does the truth set us free.

In the current political climate ... truth gets you hammered.

And that's the memo.

Do Something!

2016-06-16T03:28:00Z

Today in Georgia Donald Trump made a speech where he once again criticized President Obama for not using the words "radical Islamic terrorism."

But there was also a new insinuation against the president, that he is protecting Hillary Clinton in the email investigation.

TRUMP: “She'll basically do whatever Obama wants her to do, you understand why, because that whole thing is just ridiculous what's going on there. That's just ridiculous, how that can happen in our country today is absolutely one of the great insults to law enforcement, and let's see what happens. But she's being totally protected. ((EDIT)) I think if something was going to happen on the crimes that have been committed, I would have assumed it would have happened already, don't you think?”

Whatever else is said about Donald Trump, he is the most provocative presidential candidate perhaps in American history.

There is no question that President Obama is not winning hearts and minds on the terror front.

That's because his methodical approach to neutralizing ISIS has not worked, as we pointed out last night.

The savages may be losing individual fights, but their jihad is alive and well.

And after watching 49 innocent Americans murdered in Orlando, most of us want action.

Do something!

GOV. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): “When are we going to say enough is enough and say we are absolutely going to destroy ISIS, we're going to stop the evil of radical Islam. We've got to at some point say - is 49 enough? How many more can there be?”

But if President Obama and by extension Hillary Clinton continue to hold power, there will not be drastic action taken by the USA against ISIS or anybody else.

That's just the way it is.

Donald Trump has capitalized on that; his two big issues are the economy and terrorism.

He says the USA must ban Muslims at least in the short term from coming to America if they live in areas that have terrorism.

Talking Points does not believe that kind of ban would make us safer.

We need the Jordanians, we need some of the Gulf states, we need Morocco to help us fight the savages, especially in the intelligence area.

However, as I told Mr. Trump earlier this week, every refugee seeking asylum in this country has to be vetted extensively. No one from a terror area can just take up residence here without ICE knowing exactly what they've done in their lives.

By the way, even with extensive vetting, that doesn't mean terrorists will not get in. They will … they have, they're here.

And in European countries some of the refugees have already committed terrorist acts.

So this is one big mess and there are no easy solutions, as everybody knows.

But with President Obama hesitating to use the words "radical Islamic terrorism" the perception in some quarters is he is not as tough as he could be on the jihad.

And that gives a big advantage to Donald Trump in his quest to become president.

And that's the memo.

Acceptable Losses

2016-06-15T04:17:00Z

In the debate over the Orlando terror attack and fighting ISIS in general, both the left and right are making major mistakes.

And those mistakes are getting people killed, the so-called "acceptable losses" theory.

Today under heavy pressure President Obama was forced to talk tough about the ISIS savages:

OBAMA: "Our mission is to destroy ISIL. Since I last updated the American people on our campaign two months ago, we've seen that this continues to be a difficult fight, but we are making significant progress."

Some progress is being made in the half-measures being used against the ISIS savages but not enough to vanquish the jihad or even dent their murderous swagger.

The president and the American left bare a good measure of responsibility for not annihilating terror threats that are ongoing and have changed our way of life.

Here are the facts:

The left opposes a declaration of war against radical Islamic organizations.

They oppose the Patriot Act, which gives U.S. intelligence agencies more tools to blunt attacks.

The left opposes tough border security measures, in fact some in that crew want open borders.

Many on the left would not even support Kate's Law, which quickly and harshly punishes violent foreigners who defy deportation.

And in perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of all, instead of demanding strong punishment for criminals and terrorists who use guns, the left stands silent on that and so does Mr. Obama.

All they want is to obliterate the Second Amendment, which was put in the Constitution to give us the right to protect ourselves from bad people.

It's the guns not the terror threat that move the left:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: "All you people on Twitter who like to come after folks, back up because you can't explain this. You can't explain this away. You couldn't explain it at Sandy Hook. You can't explain it here. ((EDIT)) Keep your stuff to yourself. I don't care what you think. Back off. I don't care."

The Orlando attack has mobilized Americans and quickly become a campaign and presidential legacy issue.

In response to persistent criticism that he does not verbally define Islamic terrorism, Mr. Obama today said this:

OBAMA: "There's not been a moment in my seven-and-a-half years as president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label radical Islam. Not once has an advisor of mine said, 'Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.' Not once."

Here's what the president does not seem to understand.

It is his job to lead the world against the jihad.

By not even spelling out the precise danger, by using substitute wording for Islamic terrorism, he is sending a message that it's not really the fault of the Muslim world that this atrocious jihadist campaign has taken root.

But here's the truth: If all the good Muslims in the world would unite against the jihad, it would be wiped out in weeks.

Are we clear?

Now for right-wing responsibility.

There is too much gun crime in the USA and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get.

That's the fact.

So let's deal with it.

We all have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a new world order.

No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.

That's because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has the right to regulate militias made up of individuals in the name of public safety.

Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale and the states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their people.

New laws are needed in the age of terrorism and mass murder.

The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evil-doers like Mateen from buying weapons.

That law needs to be very precise.

Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain guns -- heavy weapons -- to the FBI.

Not handguns, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress.

That's sane and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to kill.

Although as Talking Points has stated many times, no society will ever stop all gun crimes, especially in a country which has hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation.

Now, back to ISIS.

According to a study by the Rand Corporation, the number of Sunni jihadist Muslims doubled between 2010 to 2013 - the prime years of President Obama's pullback in Iraq and the Middle East.

Just since 2014, more than one thousand human beings have been murdered by ISIS outside of their base areas in Syria and Iraq.

While President Obama is content with wearing ISIS down and outsourcing the direct fight to others, that strategy is clearly leading to more death and disruptions all over the planet.

But the left will not see that this is a war worth fighting.

STEPHEN COLBERT: "After 9/11 we went to war in Iraq. We treated it as a military ..."

O'REILLY: "That was a mistake."

COLBERT: "Why is this not a mistake to treat this as a military event?"

O'REILLY: "We were an occupier. We wouldn't be an occupier here. This is a war of attrition against a terror group that's the same philosophy at the Nazis - it's the Third Reich. It's insane."

COLBERT: "But how does that stop a lone gunman here in the US?"

O'REILLY: "I told you, you can't stop that."

COLBERT: "You can't stop it so why would we then declare war based on this? (APPLAUSE)"

O'REILLY: "Rather than outsourcing the fighting to the Kurds, NATO would do it and NATO would destroy command and control of ISIS and al Qaeda. Destroy it. Right now guys like Mateen think ISIS is winning because they're on the internet and ISIS is telling them they're winning. ISIS is causing all kinds of trouble. Once the world sees these people are being annihilated, and I mean annihilated, that whole propaganda of 'winning the jihad, the caliphate, we're going to get this established' vanishes."

By the way, we've posted the entire interview with Colbert on BillOReilly.com.

Just in time to prove my point, a new Fox News poll asked Americans if America is a stronger or weaker country under President Obama's leadership.

The poll among registered voters is instructive:

49% say the USA is weaker since Mr. Obama took office.

40%, stronger.

Summing up, the Islamic jihad has declared war on America and the West.

We have not responded to their violence with any kind of urgency.

We are reactive rather than aggressive.

At home we need tighter regulation of individual weapons of mass destruction, but we also need to stop demonizing good people who own guns for protection and want to keep their rights in place.

I hope we are all clear.

And that's the memo.

The Aftermath of the Orlando Massacre

2016-06-14T01:12:00Z

There are two major situations the nation must deal with in the interest of your public safety -- keeping you and the people you care about safe from random violence.

First, the Islamic jihad.

Second, guns.

On the ISIS-jihad front, Congress must declare war on specific terror groups like ISIS, shifting the primary role of protection from law enforcement agencies to the military.

A declaration of war would allow the president much more leeway in neutralizing terror threats both within and outside the country.

Also, NATO nations would then have to step up the fight against the savages, bringing more power to the battlefield, which of course is everywhere.

This strategy is not a knock at American law enforcement agencies; they are doing excellent work.

But as we've learned in the Orlando case, the FBI had the terrorist Omar Mateen in its files.

But civil liberties being what they are, suspicions are not enough. You cannot detain someone for long without proof of a crime.

In a war situation, investigators would have far more options in defining enemy threats and dealing with them.

It is troubling that the current commander-in-chief will not say the words “Islamic terror” to define the threatening enemy.

Again, today responding to mass murder carried out by an ISIS sympathizer, Barack Obama would not reference the specific threat from the Islamic jihad:

OBAMA: “As far as we can tell right now, this is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been so concerned about for a very long time.”

So-called "homegrown extremism" is a problem that will never be solved. There will always be violent loons like Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Marathon killers.

No power on Earth can extinguish that.

But organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda are a far different story. They can be confronted and destroyed just as the Third Reich was during World War II.

By the way, Talking Points will say it again. There is no difference between ISIS and the Nazis.

Hitler and his maniacal followers targeted homosexuals for extermination along with Jews and other groups.

The Orlando terrorist hated and targeted gays in conjunction with the ISIS philosophy.

President Obama does not seem to understand that you cannot contain evil, you most destroy it.

His policies of retreat in the Middle East directly led to the rise of ISIS, a situation that has resulted in horrific mass murders in at least twenty countries, as well as the migration crisis in Europe.

At first, Mr. Obama tried to marginalize ISIS by calling it the J-V. Then he outsourced the fight to the Kurds and other groups, foolishly stating that they could mitigate the threat.

Because the liberal American press has largely supported the retreat, Mr. Obama's continued failure to stop the jihad or even define the threat accurately is basically downplayed by the national media.

Summing up, America is under attack by Muslim fanatics. Just because they don't use tanks and planes doesn't mean this isn't war. It is.

Now on to guns.

President Obama is much more comfortable promoting anti-gun policy than he is discussing the jihad:

OBAMA: “We are also going to have to make sure that we think about the risks we are willing to take by being so lax in how we make very powerful firearms available to people in this country. And this is something I've obviously talked about for a very long time.”

Mr. Obama is correct in asserting that Congress should debate which weaponry is acceptable under the Second Amendment.

Public safety demands that certain weapons not be allowed -- you can't sell a bazooka or hand grenades.

Congress has the power to outlaw specific weapons and did so in 1994 with certain kinds of rifles. That ban has lapsed.

That debate is valid and necessary.

But when you hear a politician or pundit say that banning guns will stop mass murder, know that you are being deceived.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA and bad people will always be able to get them, period.

Also, self-protection is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that will never change.

All Americans have a right to own firearms. Not necessarily to carry them, to own them.

States make carry laws depending on what their population wants.

Twenty years ago there was a mass murder in Tasmania, a part of Australia. Thirty-five people shot dead by a maniac using a semi-automatic rifle.

Australia, with a population of 24 million, then banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles, as well as essentially banning handguns.

Caught with one illegally, you can get 14 years in prison.

Since 1996, gun murders have dropped 72% in Australia.

But here's the kicker. Roughly during the same period of time, gun murders in the USA have dropped 30%, non-fatal shootings dropping 61%.

Why? Not because of banning guns, but because of long prison terms for violent offenders, including drug gangsters.

That strategy is now being attacked by the left.

Summing up, the sane, constitutional gun policy might be this:

Certain kinds of deadly weapons should be banned for sale by congressional legislation.

All crimes committed with guns, including illegal gun sales, should be federalized and subject to strict mandatory prison terms.

But the right to own most firearms for protection should remain protected everywhere.

And the right to carry should be determined by individual states -- what works in Delaware may not work in Idaho.

America needs to punish the jihad and protect its citizens by finding realistic solutions to vexing problems

Crazed ideologues on both sides actually help the terror killers.

And so do weak leaders.

And that's the memo.

Talking Points: Terror in Orlando, Florida

2016-06-13T04:35:00Z

For the next hour this special edition of The Factor will analyze the worst mass shooting in American history.

We will keep the politics at a minimum. We will deal with the political on Monday’s Factor when Donald Trump will be here. We've also invited Hillary Clinton.

Tonight we are going to tell you exactly what happened with a sharp perspective. Believe me, this hour will not waste your time.

Let's begin with the killer.

Twenty-nine-year-old Omar Mateen was shot dead by Orlando police officers after invading a nightclub shortly after 2:00 a.m. this morning.

Mateen used an assault rifle and a pistol, and while he was gunning people down he called 911 to say he was committing mass murder in allegiance with ISIS.

Police say that Mateen, a private security guard, held a number of people hostage and the entire incident lasted for about three hours before Mateen was killed.

Over that period of time the casualty count was horrific, fifty people dead, fifty-three people wounded.

Again, this is the worst mass shooting in American history.

MAN: “Oh my God! People are getting shot dude! Oh my God!”

((EDIT))

ORLANDO MAYOR BUDDY DYER: “It is with great sadness that I share - we have not 20 but 50 casualties in addition to the shooter. There are another 53 that are hospitalized.”

((EDIT))

DOCTOR: “All over the vast majority of the gunshot wounds were to the chest, the abdomen, and the extremities.”

((EDIT))

WITNESS: “This guy was pacing back and forth looking for a family member. He had a bullet sticking out and the bullet, I kid you not, was this big (measures 4 inches with his fingers) - half in his leg and half sticking out.”

((EDIT))

BARTENDER WITNESS: “After the second shot there was a pause and then it just started shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting. That's when we knew something was wrong. Everyone just dropped to the ground.”

((EDIT))

WOMAN: “My son.”

REPORTER: “Do you know if he's ok?”

WOMAN: “No.”

REPORTER: “He was shot?”

WOMAN: “We don't know. He was in the women's bathroom with the hostage.”

REPORTER: “How did you find out?”

WOMAN: “He was texting me and calling me.”

REPORTER: “What did he tell you exactly?”

WOMAN: “That the shooter has them in the women's bathroom hostage and he's going to die.”

We do not know what happened to that woman's son, as authorities have not yet released all the information about all the victims.

We do know more about the killer. He was an American citizen whose parents emigrated here from Afghanistan.

He was married with a three-year-old son.

His father told reporters he did not like gay people, and that might be why he targeted a nightclub that caters to homosexuals.

But if Mateen did identify with ISIS, he's homophobic by association as every single jihadist on the planet hates gays.

At the White House President Obama said this:

OBAMA: “The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare no effort to determine, what, if any, inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. ((EDIT)) Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder about how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapons that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or in a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

Once again Mr. Obama putting the emphasis on guns rather than Islamic terrorism. I will analyze that situation tomorrow in Talking Points.

For tonight, let's stay on point and analyze the terror act without pointing fingers at third parties.

In the shootout inside the club, one Orlando police officer was shot in the head but his Kevlar helmet saved his life.

No other police officers were injured.

The FBI is investigating the case and apparently the bureau had Mateen in its file, as he was known to be sympathetic to jihadists overseas.

Again, he was a security worker who held a legal firearms license in Florida since at least 2011.

The ATF is saying tonight Mateen bought the weapons legally. No license is needed in order to own an assault rifle, an issue that will be closely examined after the terror attack.

On balance this seems to be more about international terrorism than a gun-control situation. However, all aspects of the case should be investigated aggressively.

Talking Points is fed up with the Islamic jihad. The world should have confronted it a long time ago and this containment garbage is getting people killed, as we have mentioned before.

You don't contain evil; you destroy it or it will destroy you.

There is no question all Americans are at risk because Islamic terrorists want to kill us just because we are Americans.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump's Only Chance to Win the Presidency

2016-06-10T03:41:00Z

With the media and other powerful left wing interests allied against Mr. Trump, his mandate to win the election is to convince the majority of voters that he can bring a vibrant economy back to America.

It has now been more than eight years since greedy banks and mortgage companies ignited one of the worst recessions in the nation's history.

Eight years is more than enough time for the powers that be in Washington to get this country back on the fast track economically.

But it hasn't happened, no matter what kind of propaganda you hear:

Obama in Elkhart Indiana, June 1:

OBAMA: “By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. (Applause) That's the truth.”

Not exactly.

Here are the facts:

Median income for American families is up less than one percent on the President's watch.

Nearly 14 million Americans have stopped looking for work since Mr. Obama took office - an increase of more than 15% since his inauguration.

And the Gross Domestic Product, which measures the health of the economy, has risen less than 3% every year since 2009.

If that holds true this year, and it will, Mr. Obama will go down in history as the first modern president to not produce GDP of more than 3% in any one year.

So, that's the fact, Jack. And no amount of spin will change it.

Americans understand it is much tougher to prosper these days than it should be:

Clinton in Keene, NH, April 2015:

CLINTON: “I want to be sure we get small businesses starting and growing in America again. We have stalled out, I was very surprised to see that when I began to dig into it. ((EDIT)) It turns out that we’re not producing as many small businesses as we used to, and a recent world study said that we are 46th in the world in the difficulty to start a small business.”

The reason for that is high taxes on business and expensive regulations.

Yet Secretary Clinton continues to say she will carry on the policies of Barack Obama, which have mandated high taxes and an avalanche of regulation.

Puzzling.

To be fair, the President now says he wants to cut the corporate tax rate. But it's a little late, is it not?

So Donald Trump has the economic field pretty much all to himself.

All the polls say American voters are not happy with the Democratic Party’s economic programs.

But Trump must do more than promise - he has to get very specific.

The truth is, China may not be intimidated into a better trade deal with the USA.

Mexico is certainly not going to pay for a billion-dollar wall, which they believe is insulting.

And while bringing jobs back to America is achievable, it will require a big carrot as well as a thick stick.

Nothing is ever easy in the economic precincts.

But that is where Donald Trump will either live or die as a politician.

Social issues matter little this year. Terrorism is important, but the situation is so complicated voters cannot possibly predict outcomes.

However, the folks know what's in their bank accounts and they know President Obama has not helped them out very much.

Advantage Trump.

And that's the memo.

Thank God the Primaries Are Over

2016-06-09T05:32:00Z

So it's on to the main event: Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump for the presidency.

Over the next few months we will be bombarded with personal attacks, deception, fraud, fear and loathing.

It all began last night:

HIILARY CLINTON: “Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president and commander-in-chief (loud cheers) ((EDIT)) He's not just trying to build a wall between America and Mexico, he's trying to wall off Americans from each other. When he says, let's make America great again, that is code for, let's take America backwards. (cheers).”

So here is Hillary Clinton’s two-fold campaign strategy:

First, to paint Trump as a bigot, a man who despises Latinos, blacks, women, whomever.

Second, to portray him as unstable, a president who would bomb Portugal if they tee him off over there.

You will hear those recurring themes over and over and over.

As for Mr. Trump, he said this last night:

TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund. The Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese, all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It’s a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens.”

On Monday, Mr. Trump says he will have a major corruption speech about Hillary Clinton.

And his two main campaign points are first, to portray her as a criminal. And second, to convince Americans that she will carry on the policies of Barack Obama, which have led to deep disenchantment - especially in the economy.

So there will not be much nuance in the upcoming campaign.

Does that matter? Not really.

The truth is, most Americans have already made up their minds. There are very few who are still confused over whether Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump is the best candidate.

So it will be all about turnout. That's what will decide the election.

Also, the end of the primaries means that Bernie Sanders is headed to the locker room.

Maybe.

SANDERS: “Next Tuesday we continue the fight in the last primary in Washington, DC! (loud cheers) ((EDIT)) And then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania!! (loud cheers)”

I guess someone forgot to tell the senator that he got hammered in California - a state he thought he would win.

There is no chance that Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee for president. But put yourself in his position. What else does the senator have to do?

Unless you are fascinated by cows, hanging around Vermont doesn't offer very much.

Yes you can ski, but not in the summer. I guess you could go to the birthplace of Calvin Coolidge.

Vermont is beautiful, but very, very quiet.

Back in Washington, Bernie Sanders really never made much of an impact.

He did good work for veterans. But that's about it. He's not a player in the Senate.

So Bernie will go to the convention to get his accolades, but you won't be seeing much of him anymore.

The Clinton campaign needs Sanders supporters but believe me, they don't want the Bern flaming out around them.

Summing up, nasty campaign ahead, very simple strategies. I hope you get to take a long vacation this summer.

And that's the memo.

Did Clinton Catch a Break Because Trump Criticized a Federal Judge?

2016-06-08T04:22:00Z

Later on this evening Secretary Clinton will make a victory speech, as she now has more than enough delegates for the nomination.

She still has the FBI investigation to deal with, but other than that she simply has to defeat Donald Trump to become the next president.

However, that might not be so simple because the populist campaign Trump is running has energized millions of voters.

The Clinton Campaign is counting on Mr. Trump to continue creating controversy that will dilute his message.

Last night on this program Mr. Trump reiterated that he believes the judge presiding over the class-action suit against Trump University has treated him unfairly.

Mr. Trump says it's all about politics because the judge is of Mexican descent and may not applaud Trump's strong stance against illegal immigration.

Today Mr. Trump issued a statement saying he is finished talking about the situation.

But the story will remain and it is worth analyzing in a fair way.

If you read the New York Times today, there's an article stating that Mr. Trump has attacked judges in the past who have ruled against him.

Some of those judges were white.

The truth is if Mr. Trump feels aggrieved, he will criticize you or me or anyone.

That's just the way he is.

So those who are calling Mr. Trump a racist apparently do not know his history. He is an equal-opportunity basher.

But it was unwise for the presidential candidate to spotlight the judge's ethnicity.

That mistake gave the Trump-haters a free pass to vilify.

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO (D), NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER: “This is really about the most serious position in this country and he is defaming and detracting attention away from the essence of this case. This is an individual, Donald Trump, who is a charlatan and who is racist.”

Ms. Viverito has despised Trump for years and her charge of racism went unchallenged.

That is wrong.

Whether it's Trump or Hillary Clinton or President Obama, no ad-hominem attacks carry any credibility.

They should be condemned by all.

This racism business is totally out of control and journalists have a responsibility to rein it in, providing perspective rather than silently allowing cheap-talk.

If you watched my interview with Donald Trump last night, the last portion of it was instructive.

O'REILLY: “I think the judge is an honest man. I don't think he is hosing you, I really don't. I have checked him.”

TRUMP: “Well, I hope so. Look, I want him to be.”

O'REILLY: “I think he is an honest guy.”

TRUMP: “I don't care if is he Mexican or not Mexican. I want him to be -- all I want him to do is give me a fair shake. When we have thousands of people says it's great, why does this thing continue to go forward?”

Finally I suggested the judge may want to recuse himself from the case, not because he's done anything wrong. He hasn't.

But this situation is far more than civil litigation.

The law firm representing the plaintiffs is a major supporter of the Democratic Party, paying Bill and Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak.

It is not a stretch to see the class-action suit as a political cudgel.

It is certainly true that Judge Curiel might be seen as giving in to intimidation if he would hand the case over to another federal judge.

That is a bad thing -- judges have to be strong in the face of criticism.

But with this case having an impact on the presidential election, it would be better if there was not a whiff of any political agenda.

Would it not?

And that's the memo.

The Counterattacks of Donald Trump

2016-06-07T03:23:00Z

No matter what happens in the Trump University civil litigation, it will not likely have much effect on the election.

Voters have more important things to consider than the disenchantment of some Trump U. clients.

But the situation has put Mr. Trump on the defensive.

No question there is a political component to the legal action, as the law firm behind the class-action lawsuits often helps the Democratic Party.

In fact, the firm has paid Bill and Hillary Clinton a combined $675,000 for speeches since 2009 according to the website Lawnewz.com.

That makes the legal action look like a political hit job, as it is likely the law firm is working on contingency.

Mr. Trump is correct to be indignant and defend himself vigorously.

But part of that defense included a negative personal assessment of the judge in the case, a Mexican-American named Gonzalo Curiel:

Trump on CNN, Friday

TRUMP: “He is a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is he is giving us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can't even believe.”

Immediately an outcry arose and not only by Trump critics.

Yesterday Newt Gingrich, who supports Trump, said the candidate was wrong to spotlight the judge's heritage:

Fox News Sunday

NEWT GINGRICH: “This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made and I think it's inexcusable. He has every right to criticize a judge and he has every right to say certain decisions aren't right and his attorneys can file to move the venue from the judge. ((EDIT)) If a liberal were to attack Justice Clarence Thomas on the grounds that he's black, we would all go crazy. Every conservative would say it was wrong and it was racism.”

Although appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Curiel is no raging liberal.

In fact, he's a tough guy. At one point, a Mexican drug cartel threatened to assassinate him because of his anti-drug trafficking stance.

However, the judge belongs to a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which does advocacy work on behalf of Latinos.

It's not associated with the radical La Raza group but confusion is understandable.

Because of that, Mr. Trump believes the judge may be biased against him, as it is well known that the candidate has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, including building a border wall.

Summing up, the Trump U. case is certainly political to some extent and a very high-profile situation.

Because of that, Talking Points believes the judge should recuse himself not because he did anything wrong - he did not - but to eliminate any doubt as to motivation in rulings.

There are plenty of federal judges that could step in.

It is valid that some may see any recusal as caving to intimidation, but stark justice at this level trumps (pardon the pun) any theoretical argument.

And that's the memo.

Can Hillary Clinton Protect Us From Villains Overseas?

2016-06-03T03:22:00Z

In San Diego this afternoon Secretary Clinton laid out her foreign policy vision, much of it attacking Donald Trump as a primary enemy of the state:

HILLARY CLINTON: "Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different -- they are dangerously incoherent. They are not even really ideas. Just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies. ((EDIT)) This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin."

Now on Monday Mr. Trump will be here and I'll give him one free shot at Mrs. Clinton for running that sound bite.

But I had to do it because much of her foreign policy speech concentrated on Trump.

A few times she veered off into other territory like ISIS.

HILLARY CLINTON: "We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground."

Same policy as Mr. Obama -- contain ISIS using air power and weak allied forces, which can't possibly defeat the vicious terror crew.

There comes a point when American voters must recognize that policies depending on foreign cooperation rarely work.

If we want ISIS defeated, we are going to have to lead the way.

If we don't, the savages will continue to murder people consistently.

Secretary Clinton also briefly discussed Putin and China, but again brought it back to Trump:

HILLARY CLINTON: "Now Moscow and Beijing are deeply envious of our alliances around the world because they have nothing to match them. They'd love for us to elect a president that would jeopardize that source of strength. If Donald gets his way, they'll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen."

So today's foreign policy speech was not that really. It was an attempt to whip up anti-Trump feeling in California, which the Clinton campaign believes will mobilize voters to choose her over Sanders next Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton knows the world, no question about that. But so far I am not seeing many innovative foreign policy pronouncements.

If she wants to run on what President Obama has done, that's fine and voters will determine the wisdom of that approach.

But if Secretary Clinton has any new ideas, they are still being kept top secret.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump and the Media

2016-06-02T03:36:00Z

Yesterday, Mr. Trump slammed the national media for questioning his donations to American veterans.

The issue stemmed from a benefit Mr. Trump held last January where he said he raised $6 million to help vets in need.

A report by the Washington Post questioned whether the money had been distributed in a timely manner.

So in a press conference, Mr. Trump laid out what his organization did, citing names of organizations and amounts of money donated.

Then Mr. Trump lashed the press - something he does frequently:

TRUMP (MAY 31): “You know my opinion of the media, it’s very low.”

((EDIT))

TRUMP (APRIL 20): “Do we like the media?”

CROWD: “NO!”

TRUMP: “Do we hate the media?”

CROWD: “Yeah!!”

((EDIT))

TRUMP (FEB. 26): “I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met.”

((EDIT))

TRUMP (DEC. 7): “Some of the media is terrific, but most of it—70%, 75%, is absolute dishonest, absolute scum. Remember that. Scum. Scum!”

Today, the Associated Press reports that some of Mr. Trump's donations were just recently distributed, including his own one million dollar check.

That's legitimate. I did the same thing after the 9/11 telethon, which was held to benefit families devastated by the al Qaeda attack.

You may remember George Clooney and a bunch of other stars raised millions but the money was not distributed in a timely way and I got involved.

But nowhere did I insinuate that George Clooney and the other celebrities did anything wrong.

I just wanted them to push the United Way and other charities for full disclosure.

Very similar to the Trump situation. It isn't the reporting on the donations that's wrong, it's the insinuation that Trump is a fraud.

The national press should push Trump and others to fulfill their obligations quickly and efficiently, but that's it. You don't cast aspersions and that's what Trump was objecting to.

To be clear, Mr. Trump should have defined the issue sooner and also he should release his tax returns, as Talking Points has stated.

However, Mr. Trump is correct when he slams the national press for constantly trying to vilify him, playing the “gotcha” game.

I personally can feel Trump's pain because the national press does the same thing to me.

The Factor is attacked over and over, as am I, on a variety of bogus charges. It's been going on for 20 years. It's wrong and corrupt.

And the only reason the national press despises this program is ideology.

We are the most successful cable news program of all time. We invented the prime time opinion genre and we are fair and responsible here.

Yet the press looks for any reason to denigrate us.

So I understand what Trump is going through, but I also know that he sometimes gets a bit testy when legitimate reports surface that he doesn't like.

Donald Trump wants to be president so he will be scrutinized. That's the way it should be in a free society.

However, skepticism should not be accusation and often it is.

And that's the memo.

The Murder of Kate Steinle and Congress

2016-05-31T07:00:00Z

A new poll from the Associated Press says that Americans do not trust Congress or the major political parties.

First question, what is your confidence level as far as Congress is concerned?

4% - a great deal.

48% - only some.

46% - hardly any.

Confidence in the Republican Party:

8% - a great deal.

40% - only some.

51% - hardly any.

Confidence in the Democratic Party:

15% - a great deal.

41% - only some.

43% - hardly any.

Confidence in the president and executive branch:

15% - a great deal.

50% - only some.

33% - hardly any.

And finally, confidence in the military:

56% - a great deal.

37% - only some.

7% - hardly any.

So you can see that the biggest loser in this poll is Congress with only four percent having a great deal of confidence in it.

Here's why:

You may remember last July, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco.

She was out for a walk with her father when an illegal alien felon, convicted in the USA seven times and deported five times, shot her in the back.

The man, Mexican national Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had been released from jail by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.

That despite the fact that ICE -- Homeland Security -- had asked San Francisco authorities to keep Sanchez incarcerated until they could pick him up.

The Sheriff's Department said "no," backed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which actually voted not to cooperate with the feds on illegal alien crime.

So, I proposed Kate's Law, whereby any convicted aggravated felon who defies deportation could be immediately taken into custody and sentenced to a mandatory five years in a federal penitentiary first offense, 10 years second.

That would give law enforcement a powerful tool to sweep dangerous foreign nationals off the streets of America.

Yet Congress would not pass Kate's Law.

The despicable Harry Reid blocked Kate's Law in the Senate.

Then Republican Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell would not put the proposed law up for a vote stand alone, instead attaching it to a Sanctuary Cities bill McConnell knew would fail.

In the House there was confusion as well, and Kate's Law stalled.

If we as a country cannot pass a simple law to protect innocent people like Kate Steinle from foreign, aggravated felons, then Congress should go out of business.

That's how bad this situation is and that's why most Americans have lost confidence in the House and Senate.

The Steinle family is broken hearted of course and on Friday they announced they are suing the federal government, the city and county of San Francisco and the former sheriff there.

They are also suing Sanchez, the alleged triggerman.

In just a few moments "Is It Legal?" will have more on the lawsuit.

Summing up, I've been practicing journalism for more than 40 years and I have never seen federal, state and local authorities act so cowardly.

Kate Steinle is not alone. Other Americans have been killed by illegal alien aggravated felons and Congress does nothing when it easily could.

Or am I wrong?

And that's the memo.

How Much Trouble Is Hillary Clinton Really In?

2016-05-26T23:01:00Z

Yesterday the Inspector General of the State Department harshly criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for conducting federal business on her private email system.

Steven Linick went on to say that Mrs. Clinton did not seek permission to circumvent the rules but, most damning of all, the IG reports that Hillary Clinton refused to talk to him about the violations.

Each federal agency has an Inspector General who is in charge of investigating alleged wrongdoing.

Now this is a major development because the FBI is investigating Secretary Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing and Linick provides motive.

His report says Mrs. Clinton refused to use government email because she feared that some of her correspondence might be made public.

Reaction to the story came quickly:

REPORTER VOICEOVER: “Overnight Clinton’s first response to that report, telling Univision her emails won’t be an issue.”

CLINTON: “It’s the same story (EDIT) and it’s not an issue that’s going to affect either the campaign or my presidency.”

((EDIT))

TRUMP: “She's as crooked as they come, she had a little bad news today as you know from some reports came down, weren't so good. But, not so good. The inspector general’s report, not good.”

And at the State Department itself there was this:

MARK TONER, DEPUTY STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: “I do know that there were hack attempts but none of them were successful.”

QUESTION: “How do you know that none of them were successful?”

TONER: “I’d just have to refer you to –“

QUESTION: “How do you know that? Because the report does not say that none of them were successful.”

TONER: “I apologize, actually. I misspoke. Yep. But I will say, but I just would refer you to Secretary Clinton’s team to, for questions about the security of her system.”

Mr. Toner is being ridiculous, referring questions to Clinton's team?

Come on, you are insulting us.

Hillary Clinton is banking on the FBI not recommending charges.

If the agency does, it's over for the secretary.

But if no indictment is forthcoming, voters will most likely shrug - especially because her base is so ardently anti-Trump.

Summing up, not a good Wednesday for Hillary Clinton.

And that's the memo.

How Black Lives Matter Is Killing Americans

2016-05-26T02:53:00Z

First, the stats - and they are stunning.

Since the Ferguson chaos, murders in the USA’s 50 largest cities are up close to 17% -- and much higher in cities with large black populations.

In Chicago this year alone, shootings are up around 80%.

Why? Because the Chicago police have stopped stopping suspicious people.

So-called "pedestrian stops" are down 90% in the Windy City.

When you fail to police pro-actively, people commit more crimes.

The media will not spotlight that much of the violent crime in America is being committed by young black men.

In fact, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at a rate 10-times higher than white and Hispanic male teenagers combined.

And blacks of all ages commit homicide at a rate eight times higher than whites and Hispanics combined.

Conclusion - there is a violent sub-culture in the African-American community that should be exposed and confronted.

Enter the Black Lives Matter crew, which roams around the country promoting a false narrative that American police officers are hunting down and killing blacks.

Here's the truth:

Police shot whites at a rate of 50% in 2015.

Police shot blacks at a rate of 26%.

In addition, Black Lives Matter is now infringing on freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

In Chicago at DePaul University this happened Tuesday night:

((Black Lives Matter Protesters Interrupt DePaul University Event))

So there is no question that Black Lives Matter is affecting the United States.

A new book by Heather Mac Donald entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe," starkly lays out the threat from the radical group, which openly attacks CompStat -- a policy placing officers where violent crime is taking place.

Here's a quote from Ms. Mac Donald:

“In terms of economic stimulus alone, no other government program has come close to the success of [CompStat]. In New York City, businesses that had shunned previously drug-infested areas now set up shop there, offering residents a choice in shopping and creating a demand for workers. … Children could ride their bikes on city sidewalks without their mothers worrying that they would be shot. But the crime victories of the last two decades, and the moral support on which law and order depends, are now in jeopardy thanks to the falsehoods of the Black Lives Matter movement.”

Summing up, thousands more Americans are being murdered because police are now more passive since the Ferguson situation and the Black Lives Matter protests.

Talking Points believes every American should know the truth.

Sympathetic media and many race hustlers are backing Black Lives Matter.

The final indignity? Members of the group have even been invited to the White House.

And that's the memo.

Tuesday's Memo: Americans and Money

2016-05-25T04:11:00Z

Americans and money - That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

There is no question that economic issues will be foremost in the upcoming presidential election. That's why Hillary Clinton's decision not to debate Bernie Sanders on Fox News is a major mistake for her. Sanders, as you know, wants to blow up capitalism because he says it's a corrupt system. The Vermont senator admires socialism whereby the government calls the shots in the private marketplace.

A debate with Sanders on Fox News would give Secretary Clinton a major opportunity to smash that theory to stick up for capitalism and perhaps persuade some voters she is not an ardent leftist. But again, Mrs. Clinton has refused the debate even though she said this back in 2008:

CLINTON: Honestly, I just believe this is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere.

Now on to you. A new poll by the Associated Press says that two thirds of American adults would have difficulty coming up with money to cover a one thousand dollar emergency expense.

75% of Americans making less than $50,000 dollars a year say they would have trouble with that.

67% of those making between $50-100,000 say the same thing.

Even for the country's wealthiest citizens households making more than $100,000 a year, 38% say they would have difficulty coming up with a thousand bucks to pay an emergency expense. Stunning.

And it all goes back to the change in how Americans view money.

In 1965 the poverty rate was 17% in America. In 2014, nearly 50 years later, the poverty rate was 15%. Obviously not a big improvement.

But here's the key - 50 years ago, personal disposable income, money you have on hand to spend, was just $14,000 dollars. In 2015 it was $38,000 dollars. A vast improvement in spending power.

The problem is that we spend it all. We don't save. We're not frugal. We want immediate gratification.

Now for those viewers who understand American culture, the studies are not shocking. My parents were children when the Great Depression hit and that scared the heck out of them as my grandparents had to struggle to put food on the table. The depression kids carried on a tradition that money was never to be wasted.

Then World War two hit and millions of Americans were forced to fight for their lives. The suffering was tremendous but our military prevailed and most civilians did what they could to help the military. They weren't thinking much about money. There was a greater cause.

Now I grew up in Levittown, New York - a suburb 25 miles east of New York City. The housing in Levittown was cheap, especially to vets who got low cost mortgages. Very few of us in the neighborhood had anything. It was very working class. In my house we ate fish sticks, tuna, hot dogs, Spaghetti-os.

My parents never had a new car. Our house did not have air conditioning. It was like India there in August.

That kind of upbringing meant that all financial transactions were scrutinized. No appetizers when we went to the local Italian restaurant.

And college was out of reach for some of my friends. My father saved so my sister and I could go. Money was not to be wasted ever. That values system is deeply rooted in me. I do not waste money. I would rather give it to charity.

I don't want a plate from Cape Cod. I don't want a Bentley. I don't want very much on the material side at all. But I realize that most Americans are different. They want stuff -- especially younger Americans. And many of them feel they are entitled. They should be provided with the things they desire.

A recent study by Harvard University says that 51% of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 do not support capitalism. Just 42% buy into the system we have had since 1776.

And in a Gallup poll, 35% of Americans now have a positive view of socialism.60% say capitalism is the way to go.

Talking Points submits to you that those who want socialism have no blanking idea what that system really means. Bernie Sanders likes to point to Sweden, a nation of nine million people, most of whom look exactly the same. It is easy for the government of Sweden to provide cradle to grave entitlements while taking the majority of what people earn to support that system.

But here in America, that would lead to disaster. We are simply too big a county to be told what we can earn and what we can do with what we have.

In China, which has nearly one and a half billion citizens, they have to impose communism and socialism.

You go to prison or worse if you defy the government mandate. And to keep the educated population in check, the Chinese government allows capitalism in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong.

It goes against the nature of most people to tell them how to live their lives. Some Americans freely choose to serve the public by teaching in law enforcement or in local politics. That's a good thing but you will not get wealthy there.

It is also a good thing to use your talents to expand your income. That's what I did at one point my father encouraged me to join the Teamsters Union. I did not take his advice, preferring to go to college, then to study abroad, then to go to grad school. But I paid for most of that myself by painting houses, driving a cab, and teaching swimming. Nobody gave me anything nor did I seek that.

The harder I worked, the more money I made, and I saved a lot of that money so I could invest and build wealth.

Are you hearing that, Bernie Sanders?

So capitalism certainly worked for me and I don't want Sanders or anyone else taking more than half my earnings to use for dubious social experiments and handouts to those who are not in need.

Right now about half my income is paid in taxes. This country has been good to me -- but don’t take more than 50%. That's it. I don't want to live in a socialist nation.

Summing up, Hillary Clinton had a huge opportunity to re-enforce that capitalism has made America the most prosperous nation on earth, giving opportunity to billions of people over the years who are willing to work hard. But the Secretary is soft on capitalism even though she has taken huge advantage of it herself.

As for regular folks, we all should wise up and practice financial responsibility. We don't need half of the stuff we buy. So save, then invest conservatively, and build some protection for yourself. The cold truth is that American politicians promise stuff they never can deliver But we the people can control our financial well-being to some extent. We just have to be smart about it.

And that's the memo.

Most Americans Don't Like their Presidential Candidates

2016-05-24T00:00:00Z

Most Americans don't like their presidential candidates. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

Since 1984 there has never been more negativity about folks running for president than there is today. According to a new Washington Post/ABC news poll both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have a 57% rating in the unfavorable category.

In a CBS News poll, Trump is at 55% unfavorable. Secretary Clinton has 52%

In a Wall Street Journal - NBC poll 58% don't like Trump & 54% are negative about Hillary.

The question then becomes can these candidates overcome those negatives?

Talking Points believes that many American voters will stay home this time around even though the campaign will be very intense.

Right now Donald Trump has improved his polling because more than 80% of Republicans many of whom did not support him before are now on board with Mr. Trump. That support is driven in part by a loathing for Hillary Clinton.

On the other side, the number is also more than 80% of Democrats supporting the secretary. That's fairly predictable Mrs. Clinton is a liberal woman who will carry on many of President Obama's policies.

But independent voters will decide who becomes the next president, and this is where both candidates have a problem.

In Donald Trump's case, he would be wise to continue his self-described straight talk but shift the adjectives. His base is firm. Trump supporters love him. He doesn't need to be demeaning in his speech unless it's an egregious situation.Mr. Trump's use of verbal shock and awe will only help him further if voters believe the insults are in context and not designed simply to shock.

Also, the more specific Donald Trump is on policy, the more votes he will get. In just a few moments I will ask Mr. Trump very pointed questions about terrorism and the transgendered situation.

As for Hillary Clinton, she needs to stop her calculated posture. There is no reason that Mrs. Clinton should not debate Bernie Sanders on the Fox News Channel. As we said last week - although she has the nomination locked up, she will reach millions of independent voters in that debate and she'll need them in the general election.Also, Mrs. Clinton should answer questions from people like me - not just from sympathetic journalists.

Summing up - independent Americans have the power this time around.

And both candidates should realize that.

And that's the memo.

Who Do You Trust More: Trump or Clinton?

2016-05-19T07:00:00Z

A brand New Fox news Poll on who do you trust more: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

The poll listed issues in order of importance so the first thing you'll see on your screen in a moment is what most Americans care about.

Number One: The economy - Who do you trust to do a better job?

Trump wins big here 53 to 41 over Mrs. Clinton because of his success in business I believe.

Second most important issue: Terrorism. Here Americans once again favor trump at 52 percent while Secretary Clinton only clocks in at 40 percent.

Third issue is healthcare: Here Hillary Clinton does better. 48 percent of Americans trust her more on the issue. 45 percent get behind Trump.

Number four: Education. 51 percent support Hillary here. 41 percent support Trump. Education spending is traditionally a Democratic issue.

Next up: Immigration. A bit of a surprise here. Secretary Clinton comes out on top 47 to 45 over Mr. Trump, the anti-illegal immigration guy.

And finally social issues like abortion, secularism that kind of thing: 50 percent of Americans trust Hillary Clinton and just 38 percent like Donald Trump.

You would have to consider this poll good news for Mr. Trump because the economy will be the driving issue next November and he wins on that. Also terrorism, which is number two.

Talking Points was surprised that Mr. Trump did not prevail on immigration. That shows that many Americans do not want illegal aliens deported. I do believe most Americans would like an effective wall on the southern border but we'll have to do an independent poll on that.

The big headline this week in American politics is that Donald Trump is very competitive with Hillary Clinton. You'll remember that much of the national press thought that impossible just a few weeks ago.

Of course that same press is rooting against Donald Trump.

Summing up, the more Trump defines important issues, the better off he will be. And the more Hillary Clinton gets out of her campaign mode and into one-on-one communications like doing interviews with me and others who do not openly support her, the more currency she could gain. We'll have more on that in the tip of the day.

Finally one footnote, Fox News also asked Americans about how they feel after almost eight years of the Obama administration. Just 26 percent feel they are better off now than they were when Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

Says a lot.

The American Press and Donald Trump

2016-05-18T04:45:00Z

Let's turn to what I believe is a very important story about press coverage of Donald Trump. And that is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo

As you may know, The New York Times published a front page article on Sunday with the headline "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private".

The article is now in dispute as one of the primary women interviewed says her words were taken out of context and that the reporters did not accurately portray her interactions with Mr. Trump. Both sides have been all over cable news.

The situation is important to you the American voter because it signals that it will be very difficult for Americans to get the truth when Donald Trump is involved.

The New York Times assigned reporters Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey to write the story. As Joe Concha reported on the website Mediaite, Mr. Barbaro has written a number of anti-Trump tweets - nothing egregious- just trivial pursuits.

However in an honest media operation, those tweets would have disqualified Mr. Barbaro from reporting on Donald Trump.

Ms. Twohey is another story. She's an excellent reporter with a great resume. She has accomplished much, including being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. The problem is that Megan Twohey is a feminist or so it seems.

The factor asked Ms. Twohey to appear this evening. She declined. No surprise.

This is a tough forum. She and Mr. Barbaro did appear on other cable outlets that are friendly to liberal points of view.

Now the reason I mention feminism in connection with reporting on Donald Trump is that his resume goes against that ideology. For example, Mr. Trump ran beauty contests, referred to women as "Trump girls" and has been flamboyant in his interactions with the opposite sex. We asked Ms. Twohey if she herself is a feminist both on the phone and in writing. She declined to answer in both cases.

But here's what she said about the trump article yesterday:

TWOHEY: "I think there were some themes that emerged. There were, you know, that some of the accounts with regards to unwelcome romantic advances, this unending commentary on the female form, this sort of shrewd exploitation of ambitious women. (EDIT)We can sit here and sort of analyze you know what we think of Donald trump but you know what we wanted to do with this piece was to really give the women their voices and what their experience has been, and it's a complicated story."

It is a complicated story and one that needs to be examined by reporters with no agenda.

Let's put it another way. Would you assign a person who escaped from Castro's Cuba to report on Bernie Sanders? Would that be fair to put a person who obviously despises socialism in a position to gather information about the socialist senator? No, it would not be fair. So why then would an editor allow a feminist to report on Donald Trump?

By the way, being a feminist can be a very good thing. That political position has led to many positive changes for American women. So there is no denigration in my analysis.

It all comes back to being fair and giving you, the American voter, an unbiased look at the presidential candidates.

The fundamental problem is in the national media. There are very few non-liberal people. Many journalism schools are crazy left, insane professors spewing all kinds of nonsense. Some of the students reject it, as I did at Boston University. But others fall under the sway. And then if you get a job at the New York Times or other national media, you had better toe the liberal line. If you don't, it will be tough to advance because many editors are not “holistic” toward non-liberals, to use a PC term.

Bernie Goldberg wrote a book about this called Bias. And he knows, having worked at CBS News for more than 20 years.

But today things have reached critical mass. The New York Times and other national media are strongly anti-Trump and they cannot discipline themselves to cover the campaign fairly. Talking points told Mr. Trump himself this would happen.

Finally, there was no question in 2008 and again in '12 that the national media favored Barack Obama.

And yes, they hit John McCain and Mitt Romney but not with a vengeance -- although the Times ran a poorly sourced story about McCain's private life that turned out to be an embarrassment to the paper when its own ombudsman criticized the report.

But the Trump media thing will be much more personal than Romney-McCain. Believe me.

And it will get very nasty.

And that's the memo.

Personal Attacks and the American Voter

2016-05-17T03:37:00Z

First, a rock-solid statement:

All famous people in America are targets.

If you have money, power or fame, you need protection from those who would accuse and exploit you.

There is a full-fledged extortion industry in this country that attacks the wealthy and corporations through the legal system.

All journalists know that. We know we can find people to say negative things about any public person.

We know we can make any story come out a certain way.

And if politicians or a businessperson is involved, it's a lark.

Enter Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

Both men have been severely hammered in the American press.

For example, a front-page article in the New York Times over the weekend heavily implied that Donald Trump mistreats women.

But almost immediately one of the women quoted in the article disputed what the paper said:

ROWANNE BREWER LANE, DATED DONALD TRUMP: "They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump, and I don't appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not. ((EDIT)) He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way. He never offended me in any way. He was very gracious."

((EDIT))

MICHAEL BARBARO, NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER: "We really stand by our story. We believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself."

But the story does not speak for itself. American voters have no idea what Donald Trump did or did not do.

Reporters define that.

So saying the story speaks for itself is misleading in the extreme. The public is reliant on a third-party, a reporter to inform them honestly.

Sometimes that happens, many times it does not.

Talking Points does not know how Mr. Trump treats women in general.

We do know that he is a flamboyant entertainer, a provocateur who lives lavishly.

Voters will have to make up their own minds about Mr. Trump's private behavior and that will not be an easy thing to do.

The same thing is true with President Clinton, also the subject of a provocative article last week on Clinton Foundation money going to a for-profit energy company owned in part by friends of the Clintons.

One footnote: The New York Times did not see fit to report that story even though they have covered questionable Clinton Foundation situations in the past.

Anyway, the latest expose is loaded with innuendo about Bill Clinton's friendship with a neighbor in Chappaqua, New York.

Again, Talking Points has no idea about that.

What we do know for a fact is that Clinton Foundation money flowed to a private company, which is now failing, for the benefit of people who have helped the Clintons.

That in itself is a major story; the innuendo is meaningless at this point.

American voters are going to be subjected to an incredible amount of speculative garbage over the next six months.

The American press is not fair. It is heavily ideological and will spin all kinds of things to try to get a certain candidate elected.

It should not be this way.

But it is.

And that's the memo

Bloody Chicago and Racism on Display

2016-05-13T21:36:00Z

It is truly shocking that in the United States of America you can have a situation in primarily black neighborhoods where innocent men women and children are being gunned down by vicious drug gangs.

That's been going on for years in Chicago and little is being done about it.

Here are the shocking statistics out today:

Homicides in Chicago up 70% so far this year from last year.

Non-fatal shootings up 87%, the overwhelming majority of the victims are black.

With 1,014 people shot so far this year, the human toll is staggering:

AMBER HAILEY, MOTHER OF SEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY GUNNED DOWN: "(Crying) My baby was seven years old. Seven. He had plans. He wanted to be somebody."

((EDIT))

PIERRE CURRY, FATHER OF WOMAN KILLED IN CHICAGO SHOOTING: "(Emotional) I buried my last born last year. Now I have to bury my first born this year."

((EDIT))

DIAMOND TRUSTY, COUSIN OF SEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY GUNNED DOWN: "(Crying) He was such a curious, creative child. He was our everything!"

((EDIT))

MONICA WHITE, MOTHER OF WOMAN KILLED IN CHICAGO SHOOTING: "(Crying) Today it's us. Tomorrow it may be you. Put down the guns."

Now let me ask you a very simple question: If this were happening in Beverly Hills or Georgetown or on Park Avenue here in New York City, would the authorities not solve the problem?

We all know the answer to that question, thus the only conclusion we can arrive at is that racism is in play.

The Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, and the Governor of Illinois Bruce Rauner, a Republican, have simply failed to protect their most vulnerable citizens.

These two can bloviate all they want, but they haven't done anything effective to stop the carnage and, indeed, the situation is getting much worse.

There is no National Guard in these neighborhoods, the Chicago police force is in disarray with charges of racism against it, and the new police chief seems to be overwhelmed.

The poor people living in the free-fire zones are as threatened as anyone living in Afghanistan.

Where is the National Guard?

Where is a flood of police officers patrolling on foot 24/7 in these violent neighborhoods?

Again, this atrocity, these murders should not be happening in the USA.

It is long past time for a state of emergency to be declared in certain Chicago neighborhoods.

It is also long past time for gun-wielding thugs to be punished severely with very long prison terms.

Finally, a direct message for folks trapped in bad Chicago neighborhoods.

You guys have got to speak out, you have to march, you have to demonstrate, you have to protest.

Don't count on Black Lives Matter or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or even President Obama.

They haven't shown up, they don't seem to care.

And that's the memo.

The Real Story of Donald Trump Meeting Republican Leaders Today

2016-05-13T03:31:00Z

In politics, what you see and hear is not always reality.

Spin dominates. That's why this program was created. The ‘No Spin Zone’ cuts through all that.

Today, Donald Trump met with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan - the two men trying to find common ground on which to defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidency in November.

It is really impossible to say what both men are truly thinking, but they do have a common interest - and that is winning.

Simply put, if President Obama's economic policies are continued for four more years under President Hillary Clinton, the country may fracture.

A Wall Street Journal column today by Daniel Henninger nails it - America cannot prosper on two percent growth a year. It's simply impossible.

And that's what we have gotten under President Obama no matter how the Democrats spin it.

The weak economic growth has caused deep anger among Americans in both parties, which is why Trump has won and Bernie Sanders is so competitive.

American workers understand their lives are not secure, wages are stagnant, job growth paltry.

If you've got three kids, a mortgage and want to live a basic life, you have to earn substantial money.

Again, two percent growth will not provide the upward mobility that workers need.

While there are a number of issues dividing Republicans and Democrats, the economy is the biggest.

Trump has a big advantage here because he is running as a successful businessperson who will apply his acumen to improving the economy.

Hillary Clinton pretty much says she'll do what President Obama has done.

The problem for Trump is that some Republicans do not trust him.

But now there is no other alternative. It's either gamble with Trump or live under economic policies that put government regulation and high taxes over growth.

To be fair to Hillary Clinton, she could moderate once she's the official nominee. But right now it's entitlements everywhere and big government expansion.

The classic tax-and-spend progressive platform.

Again, how has that worked over the past eight years?

So Talking Points fully expects the Republican Party to rally around Donald Trump.

Why?

Because there is no other option for them.

And that's the memo.

Trouble for Hillary Clinton

2016-05-12T03:23:00Z

Yesterday Bernie Sanders pounded Hillary Clinton in West Virginia, a state she easily won in 2008 when she received 67% of the vote against Barack Obama.

The president got 26%.

But that was then.

Now Hillary Clinton’s campaign is drifting.

Donald Trump is rising in the polls, Secretary Clinton's aides are talking to the FBI about the email case and she is even being criticized by ardent liberals.

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: “What I think about Hillary Clinton is, you know, I imagine to be a very bright woman without the courage of her convictions because I'm not even sure what they are. ((EDIT)) Maybe a real person doesn't exist underneath there. I don't know.”

Also this morning Vice President Biden said something that may annoy Mrs. Clinton.

JOE BIDEN: “I had planned on running. It’s an awful thing to say—I think I would have been the best president. But, um, it was the right thing. Not just my family, but for me.”

Talking Points will remind everyone that if Secretary Clinton is indicted over the email fracas, it is likely to be Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders who will get the Democratic nod.

Party chieftains know Senator Sanders is simply too far out there to win the presidency.

So why is Hillary Clinton having so much trouble?

First of all, Sanders has rattled her. She never expected that kind of intense challenge from a socialist.

Second, although the secretary is smart, she's not a natural campaigner.

While Sanders has energized younger voters, Mrs. Clinton cannot seem to win over the far left.

KWAME ROSE, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND SANDERS SUPPORTER: “You have young people in this city who aren't loyal to the Clintons because their parents were locked up by the 1994 crime bill, their parents were locked up with the War on Drugs, welfare reform. These are the victims of the Clinton administration. This is a new generation.”

So what! Younger voters don't turn out in large numbers.

In order to beat Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton is going to have to come out of the left-wing precincts and appeal to independent voters.

Therefore she will have to talk to people like me and answer responsible questions.

Trump talks to everybody. He's on MSNBC all the time, but Hillary Clinton is very cautious granting interviews.

At this point she might want to rethink that strategy.

If she truly believes that she is the right person to run this country, then she should talk to all Americans, not just ideological soul mates.

For now the Clinton campaign is in trouble, no doubt.

But a resounding victory in California could change all that.

The vote in the Golden State is on June 7th.

And that's the memo.

How Partisans Are Covering the Trump-Clinton Race

2016-05-11T04:14:00Z

Donald Trump will be with us shortly, but no matter what I say to him or he says to me, anti-Trump people will condemn the interview unless of course I call him a racist, sexist or any other "ist" that the left embraces.

But it's not only crazy liberals who are distorting the presidential race.

Writing in The Hill newspaper a guy named Matt Mackowiak, who formerly worked for President Bush the younger, says that I, your humble correspondent, worship at the altar of Trump.

Who knew?

O'REILLY: “Are you getting mad at guys like me when I ask you the negative questions?”

TRUMP: “Well I think you have become very negative. I do think …”

O'REILLY: “Me?”

TRUMP: “Yes.”

O'REILLY: “Why? Why would I do that?”

TRUMP: “I don't know, who knows. You have to ask your psychiatrist.”

O’REILLY: (laughs)

TRUMP: “But I think you have become very negative.”

O’REILLY: “Toward you?”

TRUMP: “Yeah.”

Mr. Trump's disenchantment in March was echoed by just about every other candidate at one time or another, as we ask the toughest questions we can think of.

It is clear that The Hill newspaper needs to reevaluate its columnists, that is if it values honesty at all.

Now the reason for this garbage is hatred.

For example, if you are not willing to convict Hillary Clinton of crimes over the email situation, then you are not worthy even though only the FBI knows what the evidence will show.

Also, if you make true statements about the candidates, you will be attacked.

Because partisans don't want to hear the truth:

O’REILLY: “Here is what Mr. Bernie wants to do. Destroy Wall Street and the big banks. Provide each American with free healthcare -- kind of. ((EDIT)) The list of Sanders' freebies is endless. The unintended consequences are simple -- a bankrupt nation. The nearly $20 trillion debt would double under a Sanders administration.”

After I said that, condemnation rolled in.

But yesterday, as reported in the Washington Post, two new studies showed that Bernie Sanders would run up $18 trillion in debt over a decade with all his endless entitlements.

So once again, I told the truth and got hammered for it.

But read my lips, I don't care.

There is blatant dishonesty in the partisan ranks. Unfortunately they have access and can spew their garbage without challenge.

Shame on you Hill newspaper. Shame on you rank partisans.

And that's the memo.

Justice, Obama and Trump

2016-05-10T03:58:00Z

Talking Points enjoyed watching the president's speech to the graduating class of Howard University on Saturday. It was interesting and delivered with energy.

Mr. Obama's words were important because they addressed the division that we are seeing in America - a divide that has catapulted Donald Trump to the Republican nomination.

There are four speech points I would like to analyze tonight, beginning with the status of black Americans:

OBAMA: "In 1983, I was part of fewer than 10 percent of African-Americans who graduated with a bachelor's degree. Today, you're part of the more than 20 percent who will. And more than half of blacks say we're better off than our parents were at our age -- and that our kids will be better off, too. (EDIT) America is better. The world is better. And stay with me now -- race relations are better since I graduated."

The problem is race relations are now on the decline. The core constituency of Donald Trump is white, working class - primarily men.

They feel that the federal government no longer speaks for them, that they are the ones getting hammered by a growing nanny state heavy on grievance - only not their grievance.

The president made a passing reference to middle-aged white guys and how they should be understood. But at this point words are meaningless.

The Obama doctrine of income redistribution has made it tougher on the working and middle classes as they watch salaries stagnate and health insurance costs rise under ObamaCare.

Of course, none of that is the fault of African-Americans. It is the government who has alienated so many white working folks by basically ignoring them.

The second point - Mr. Obama made plays into the first one:

OBAMA: "We've got a justice gap when too many black boys and girls pass through a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails. This is one area where things have gotten worse. When I was in college, about half a million people in America were behind bars. Today, there are about 2.2 million. Black men are about six times likelier to be in prison right now than white men."

So why are there so many more Americans in prison? Three reasons: father's abandoning their children, a culture that glorifies crude and sometimes criminal behavior, and the illegal narcotics industry - much of it based in poor areas.

None of those things were mentioned by the president.

The cold truth is there has been a failure to lead on culture and family issues, and that has led to bad behavior being excused and sometimes even accepted.

American society has grown so permissive and politically correct that solving poverty is almost impossible now.

Anyone who raises questions about so-called "entertainment" that instructs children to reject civil behavior is immediately attacked in vile ways. Anyone lamenting the African-American out-of-wedlock birthrate risks being branded a racist.

I know for a fact that Mr. Obama understands and is appalled by the culture swamp. Why then isn't he attacking it?

As for schools, we continue to pour record amounts of money into public education but nothing gets better.

Why? Because the system refuses to provide discipline, direction or competition through school vouchers for the poor.

That's why!

Third point:

OBAMA: "We cannot be ignorant of history. (Applause.) We can't meet the world with a sense of entitlement. We can't walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur. We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options."

Right out of the progressive playbook. No other options but to sell drugs? Come on.

What an insult to the millions of young people of all colors working their butts off in fast food joints all across the country, or other entry level jobs - kids trying to build a resume of hard work, not taking the immoral, lazy way out by committing crimes on the street corner.

As for the homeless, there is usually a reason and many times it's personal self-destruction that no free society can prevent.

China often isolates people who refuse to be responsible but we in America don't do that, even in cases of acute mental illness.

Individual rights trump dysfunction in our county, thus the homeless problem.

Finally the fourth point:

OBAMA: "It's thanks in large part to the activism of young people like many of you, from Black Twitter to Black Lives Matter, that America's eyes have been opened -- white, black, Democrat, Republican -- to the real problems, for example, in our criminal justice system. But to bring about structural change, lasting change, awareness is not enough."

Big mistake - and rhetoric that is driving the Trump vote.

Black Lives Matter is a radical group that has little use for free speech, as both Bernie Sanders and the Clintons have found out:

SANDERS: "Thank you Seattle for being one of the most progressive cities in the United States of America!" (Black Lives Matter protesters take the stage)

((EDIT))

PROTESTER TO SANDERS: "If you do not listen to her your event will be shut down right now!"

((EDIT))

HILLARY CLINTON: "I think we've got somebody saying here -"

PROTESTER: "We want you to apologize for mass incarceration."

HILLARY CLINTON: "Ok we'll talk about ..."

PROTESTER: "I'm not a super predator Hillary Clinton,"

HILLARY CLINTON: "Okay fine, we'll talk about it."

PROTESTER: "Will you apologize to black people for mass incarceration?"

((EDIT))

BILL CLINTON: "You are defending the people who kill the people whose lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns."

Most Americans are appalled at intrusions like that, not to mention insanity like this:

August protests in Minnesota
BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS: "Pigs in a blanket! Fry 'em like bacon!"

President Obama's support of Black Lives Matter indirectly tells college graduates that radical intrusions are acceptable.

That, of course, creates an enormous wedge between his supporters and more traditional Americans - again fueling the rise of a candidate like Donald Trump.

Ironically, earlier in the speech, the president chastised those who disinvite certain people to college campuses, saying all responsible voices deserve to be heard. So what about the Black Lives Matter shout downs, Mr. President?

The truth is some reforms need to be made on the justice, racial and social fronts, but the core issues of poverty and injustice are not being addressed effectively because of politics and P.C. out of control.

Until those in power stop pandering and begin developing tough, fair-to-all policies, the growing divide in America will keep growing.

Voters who support Trump are sending a powerful message that President Obama and the young Americans who revere him should seriously think about.

These are the words that truly matter - equal justice for all.

And that's the memo.`

Presidential Campaign Already Crazy

2016-05-07T02:53:00Z

Yesterday, Cinco de Mayo, Donald Trump tweeted out a picture of himself eating tacos.

Above the picture he said that he loves Hispanics.

Almost immediately the president of the militant organization, La Raza, tweeted out, quote:

"[E]ating a taco or wearing a sombrero doesn't cut it w/ our community in 2016” . . . Trump is “clueless, offensive, and self-promoting."

So, eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo is now offensive?

That's like saying eating corned beef and cabbage on Saint Patrick’s Day and saying you love the Irish is offensive.

That's how insane American culture has become.

On a more serious note, Hillary Clinton had to be shocked when some Hispanic demonstrators in Southern California protested against her.

REPORTER VOICEOVER: “Other organizations joined together for the protest. They say Clinton has not supported a $15 national minimum wage and has been part of anti-immigration policies including, but not limited to, deporting undocumented children. They tell us that in other countries Clinton would be considered ’right wing.’”

Again, absolutely insane. Hillary Clinton certainly has no bias against Hispanic-Americans.

And then there is the political fallout from the Trump victory.

Former Presidents Bush the elder and Bush the younger, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan all will not endorse Donald Trump - at least at this point.

In response, Trump said this:

TRUMP: “I learned yesterday that a couple don't want to endorse me. I say it doesn't matter. It makes no difference. I didn't have huge support in the primary and I blew everyone away."

On the other side, Bernie Sanders, who has no shot to defeat Hillary Clinton, will not pull out of the race as Ted Cruz and John Kasich did.

SCOTT PELLEY, CBS NEWS: “Do we have your word in this interview that you are not going to drop out before the Democratic Convention?"

SANDERS: “Absolutely. We have made that commitment. I’m going to be in it until the last vote is cast.”

Senator Sanders certainly has that right, but what's the point?

He has made his point over and over: Wall Street's rigged, billionaires control everything.

Nevertheless, Bernie soldiers on. The Clinton campaign cannot be pleased.

Finally, President Obama injected himself into the campaign this afternoon, taking shots at Mr. Trump.

Bolling and Rivera will analyze later on.

So it is indeed political madness in the USA.

And believe me it's going to get a lot worse.

And that's the memo.

Handicapping the Clinton-Trump Race

2016-05-06T00:38:00Z

As you may know, we here at The Factor like to advance stories, not give you the same thing over-and-over again.

As we predicted weeks ago, Hillary Clinton will be running against Donald Trump for the presidency unless she is indicted over the email scandal.

So let's take a look at who has the advantage right now.

An analysis of the electoral votes by the Washington Post says that if Mrs. Clinton wins all the states Democrats traditionally win plus D.C., she only needs to win Florida to become president.

But that's a bit simplistic because Donald Trump should be more competitive in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania than Mitt Romney was.

However, there is no question Mrs. Clinton is the favorite to win at this moment.

Even talk radio Republicans are split on Trump.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: “My instinctive feeling right now is that Trump is going to win, beat Hillary badly, that it could be landslide proportions. I still don’t think people understand why Trump won this. I don’t think they understand at all the reason people support Trump.”

((EDIT))

GLENN BECK: “Because Donald Trump is the GOP candidate, and I believe Hillary Clinton is going to win because of this, you will never elect another GOP person to high office ever again because you’re going to have Hillary Clinton legalize as many voters as you can.”

Right now you can throw the primary votes right out the window.

About 20% of voting age Americans participated, leaving the vast number of Americans still to be heard from.

Mr. Trump's support is fervent and that will help him.

Secretary Clinton’s support is more tepid. However, her advantage in the minority precincts and among women is substantial.

And Mrs. Clinton is putting forth that she's not going to take any guff from Donald Trump:

HILLARY CLINTON: “If he wants to go back to the playbook of the 1990s, if he wants to follow in the footsteps of those who have tried to knock me down and take me out of the political arena, I'm more than happy to have him do that. ((EDIT)) This is, to me, a classic case of a blustering, bullying guy who - who has knocked out of the way all of the Republicans because they were just dumbfounded.”

For his part Mr. Trump told me last night he is more than happy to take the low road if Hillary Clinton attacks him.

That sets up a very unpredictable race, and remember a debate between Clinton and Trump will be the most watched political event in history, I predict.

So summing up, anything could happen but Hillary Clinton has to be considered the favorite today.

And that's the memo.

Why Trump Won

2016-05-04T21:46:00Z

In the beginning there were 17 contenders for the GOP nomination.

Now Donald Trump has emerged victorious.

It is a given that all the Republican candidates opposed the progressive policies of President Obama.

But what separated Donald Trump from the pack was his disdain for the Republican establishment, a contempt that reflected the feelings of many GOP voters.

One issue crystallizes that loathing, the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal alien felon who was allowed to kill her.

I addressed this on the Colbert program Monday night:

BILL O’REILLY: “32-year-old Kate Steinle, do you know this story?”

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST OF THE LATE SHOW: “I do know this, it’s a very sad, tragic story.”

O’REILLY: “She was murdered in San Francisco. Out on Ghirardelli Square with her father walking and she’s killed and shot in the back of the head, and she’s dead. Who killed her? An illegal alien aggravated felon with six felony convictions in the United States who had been deported five times and who came back six times, alright? That, the girl is dead. So I say we need Kate’s Law, which means that if an aggravated felon defies deportation, that person gets mandatory five years first offense, ten second offense, just for being in the country. Pick them up, he goes to federal prison. Kate’s Law. Simple, right? Can’t get it passed. Why? Because the Republican leadership wouldn’t get behind it. Now – Harry Reid …”

COLBERT: “Why not? Because Trump is running very successfully on an anti-illegal immigrant platform.”

O’REILLY: “Because it’s all BS and the folks know it.”

COLBERT: “Trump’s BS?”

O’REILLY: “The anti-illegal alien stuff is BS. Because you shouldn’t be anti-illegal aliens, that doesn’t solve any problems.”

COLBERT: “You should be anti-criminal.”

O’REILLY: “Right. Exactly. So –“

COLBERT: “You and I are agreeing all over the place! All over the place!”

O’REILLY: “No we’re not. You’re actually – you’re actually listening and that’s a good thing. So Harry Reid, the senator, the Democratic senator, kills this in the Senate, but Mitch McConnell the Republican leader does nothing. And then in the House, they do nothing. Why? Because they wanted to attach it to a sanctuary city bill that they knew President Obama would veto. So everybody knows this.”

COLBERT: “But why would they do that?”

O’REILLY: “That’s right, why would they do that!? Alright? And that’s – I ask, I’m pounding the table! – put it as a stand-alone.”

COLBERT: “That’s a brand new table.”

O’REILLY: “Right. Sorry. Because President Obama would sign Kate’s law I believe. He wouldn’t veto it. But you can’t attach it to 15 other things.”

COLBERT: “Ok but if …”

O’REILLY: “Just listen to me for a minute.”

COLBERT: “Oh boy. (laughter) I’ve been listening. I’ve been very good.”

O’REILLY: “You’re absorbing. Now you have to live it.”

COLBERT: “I have to live this?”

O’REILLY: “You have to learn and live. Ok, so the Republicans see this, they see their own party not doing the right thing. They expect Harry Reid to do it, he’s corrupt. But they don’t expect their leadership to not do anything. That’s why they’re furious.”

Again, Donald Trump tapped directly into the fury being felt by millions of Republican voters.

The other candidates could not match his ferocity.

That's why Trump won.

And that's the memo.

Far-Left Violence Out of Control in America

2016-05-03T02:22:00Z

Yesterday in Seattle a May Day, anti-capitalism protest turned violent.

A number of police officers were injured, one hit by a Molotov cocktail.

Some protesters were arrested, but nothing will really happen to them.

In California and Indiana, protests included young children.

Now protesting can be a good thing, think Boston Tea Party.

But it's how you do it.

Certainly some voting for Donald Trump are protesting, but they are using the ballot.

Some on the far left, however, want to destroy, not protest.

The subversives in Seattle were organized and planned their mayhem.

But again, the local system out there is so off the chart left, little will happen to these people even though they hurt police officers.

There comes a point when a political movement becomes destructive, and that point has been reached with the far left.

And we have a very personal example for you tonight.

Jesse Watters was confronted in Washington over the weekend by a far-left zealot who hectored him and provoked a confrontation.

Here's the back story:

In August 2006, I did a commentary on the Radio Factor which warned young Americans not to get intoxicated and put themselves in danger.

I was clearly talking about safety based on the murder of 18-year old Jennifer Moore from New Jersey.

Ms. Moore and a girl friend came into New York City, got drunk, separated and she wound up dead:

O’REILLY: “Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug, alright. Now she's out of her mind, drunk. And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her. And the thug is so stupid, he uses her cell phone, and the cops trace it back to him and they -- and they arrest him and charge him with murder.”

Her killer Draymond Coleman pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Three years after Ms. Moore's murder in 2009, I was doing a fundraiser for the It Happened to Alexa Foundation, which helps rape victims all over the USA.

It's a fine organization, badly needed in America, and I have been supporting it for years.

A crazy-left website called Think Progress tried to jam the fundraiser by saying that I had partially blamed Jennifer Moore for her own murder, a despicable lie.

It doesn't get lower or more vicious than that.

The woman who wrote the smear piece, Amanda Terkel, was interviewed a short time later by Jesse Watters:

JESSE WATTERS: “You wrote a blog about Bill O'Reilly going to speak for this great function, this charity group. And you attacked him personally, and you attacked the foundation. And you brought a lot of pain and suffering to this group. What's your reaction?”

AMANDA TERKEL: “What I remember was writing was highlighting a comment that Bill O'Reilly had said, and that's what I remember doing. I don't remember attacking the foundation.”

WATTERS: “What did Bill O'Reilly say?”

TERKEL: “I can't remember exactly what he had said.”

And that was the end of that until Saturday night.

Citing the interview with Terkel, this man Ryan Grim, who works for the Huffington Post, confronted Jesse Watters at a party after the correspondents' dinner.

A scuffle ensued and Watters will brief us about it a bit later on.

The whole thing was insane. This Grim character had no business bothering Jesse Watters about anything.

But that is what the far left does, they seek to harm people with whom they disagree.

Talking Points has had enough. All far-left kooks who cause trouble and break the law will be held to account here.

And a special memo to local precincts, you should really prosecute people who hurt cops and bystanders aggressively.

That's the memo.

The Political Things That Are on My Mind

2016-04-29T22:00:00Z

No. 1: John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, calling Ted Cruz, current presidential candidate, the devil.

PROF. DAVID KENNEDY: “How about Ted Cruz? (audience laughs)”

BOEHNER: “Lucifer in the flesh. ((EDIT)) In Washington I have as many Democrat friends as I have Republican friends. I get along with almost everybody but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch. (EDIT) Over my dead body will he be president.”

Now Mr. Boehner does not like Cruz because of the senator's unwillingness to compromise over the budget and other issues.

The problem here is this: Boehner is a sniper. We invited the Speaker on the program. He turned us down, as he always does.

If you are going to smear someone, at least submit yourself to questioning in order to provide some perspective.

Talking Points does not respect backstabbing. You have a beef, state it, back it up.

Boehner was wrong, not in saying what he said -- he's entitled to his opinion.

But in the sneaky way he did it.

Second thing on my mind: Will Ferrell, a very successful actor-comedian, was apparently about to do a satire that includes mocking Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's condition.

Front page in the New York Post today and Variety is reporting that Ferrell agreed to produce and star in a movie called "Reagan," which deals with the president's dementia.

Recently there was a reading of the script and there was a lot of denigration of the late president.

The movie is thus far unsold, and I believe it will remain so because now Will Ferrell has pulled out of the project after getting hammered in the court of public opinion.

Now I know a lot about this because I am an executive producer of the upcoming movie Killing Reagan based on my book.

We are currently in pre-production, the film set to air on the National Geographic Channel this coming October.

I am very involved with the script, making sure that Ronald Reagan is treated with respect and fairness.

That's how he's treated in my book and that's how he'll be treated in the movie, even though we tell the truth about the president.

As for Ferrell, if he had gone ahead with the dopey film, he would have put his career on the line.

While satirizing political people is a good thing in a vibrant democracy, cruelty is not.

Will Ferrell is an uber-liberal. Again, not a problem unless his zealotry crosses the lines of decency.

Dementia is not something you treat lightly, nor is the legacy of a president many consider to be a patriot.

No. 3: The continuing chaos outside political rallies that Donald Trump is holding.

Last night in Costa Mesa, California outside of Los Angeles, 17 people were arrested for a variety of offenses while protesting Mr. Trump:

JONATHAN HUNT: “It started with a passionate but peaceful exchange of views outside the Trump campaign event. But as the sun went down and the tension rose, hundreds of protestors moved from the parking lot of the Pacific Amphitheater, where Trump was speaking, to the streets of Costa Mesa -- blocking a major intersection, making their distaste for Trump loud and clear with one particular unbroadcastable anti-Trump slogan repeated again and again, among other shouts and chants.

“But what had been a protest in the First Amendment tradition morphed into something much darker, police donning riot gear, protestors becoming more threatening.

“A bottle was thrown at police lines, rocks hurled, a patrol car's rear window smashed, the vehicle then stomped.

“The crowds had stopped traffic on several streets. Among the vehicles trapped, one driven by a Trump supporter who got out of his car, and then emerged from the crowd with a bloody face.

“The police ordered the crowd to disperse. They didn't, many of them seemingly more intent on taking selfies than taking part in political protests.”

“Arrests began to be made. And eventually the police and sheriff's deputies began pushing back the crowd.

“In all there were more than a dozen arrests, as the police appeared to focus on containment rather than confrontation. But what was perhaps most remarkable here was that this all happened at a presidential campaign rally, a measure of the passions of this extraordinary political season. But a sign, too, of how easily those passions can and might damage rather than dignify democracy.

“In Costa Mesa, California, Jonathan Hunt, Fox News.”

I want to thank Jonathan Hunt for that excellent report.

The continuing anti-Trump shenanigans actually help the candidate.

When Americans see people destroying police cars and generally behaving in an untoward way, they don't like those people.

Their actions are undemocratic and actually provide sympathy for the person they dislike, Donald Trump.

Many of these protesters are so stupid they cannot understand that, but it is the truth.

Once a movement that is considered harmful is established, anyone opposed to that movement gets a positive shine.

Best example: Richard Nixon versus George McGovern in 1972.

The violent demonstrations against Nixon propelled him to a landslide victory, even though the man himself was generally not loved.

So you pinheads wrecking cop cars and spraying your political opponents with chemicals might want to consider that.

And that's the memo.

More Bad News for the American Economy

2016-04-29T03:34:00Z

Talking Points believes the main issue in the upcoming presidential race will be who Americans trust more to create good-paying jobs.

On Tuesday Bill Clinton defined the issue pretty well:

BILL CLINTON: “The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the crash and about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that's what's the matter.”

No argument. Under President Obama, earnings power has not improved.

Democrats say the president is creating jobs and the president himself puts forth this assessment of the economy:

REPORTER: “After eight years, what would you say you want your legacy to be?”

((EDIT))

OBAMA: “Saving the world economy from a Great Depression -- that was pretty good.”

Okay, that's a subjective comment about a great depression.

But what about improving the economy in seven-and-a-half years?

Well, today the Commerce Department announced that the U.S. gross domestic product grew at a paltry 0.5% in the first quarter of this year.

That was the worst quarterly performance in two years.

I don't want to bore you with all this economic stuff but the truth is America, the world's most powerful economic engine, is off the track.

Simply put, workers are not earning what they should earn.

Yes, the private sector has added jobs for 73 consecutive months. However, the median income remains just about the same as it was when Mr. Obama took office.

No progress in nearly eight years.

In addition, the president has added nearly $9 trillion to the federal debt. He's increased it a whopping 81% -- more than any other president in history.

And much of that debt was money spent to stimulate the economy.

Memo to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton: The government cannot stimulate the economy, at least in any meaningful way.

The private sector must do that by investing, developing new services and products, and hiring more workers in order to make more profit.

Does everybody understand that?

The big government folks like President Obama and Senator Sanders are wrong.

And we the people are paying the price.

Summing up, the economy will be the biggest issue in this year's presidential election.

The folks need better-paying jobs.

And that's the memo.

Why the Voters Are Propelling Donald Trump

2016-04-28T04:24:00Z

Much has been said about the feckless nature of the Republican leadership as the primary reason why Mr. Trump is this close to the GOP nomination.

That's an element, but not the decisive factor.

A broad disenchantment with the direction of America has fueled the Trump campaign. And that can be laid right on the progressive doorstep.

With his sweep yesterday, Trump simply needs only to win Indiana next Tuesday to secure the nomination.

That will not be easy and he will still need delegates, but it's essentially over if he takes the Hoosier State.

There are four main themes that Donald Trump is exploiting.

First, illegal immigration. Many powerful progressives like Bernie Sanders and the New York Times are open borders people.

They want a European Union situation where anyone can pretty much go where they want. To the far-left, borders are obsolete and anti-poor.

Many Americans are horrified by that stance and have watched with anger as U.S. immigration law has been disrespected and even mocked.

Trump promises to end all that.

Second, economic anxiety. Most Americans know someone who has gotten hammered in the marketplace. Most Americans do not have much money in the bank. Do the math.

Trump says he will punish concerns that steal American jobs and are unfair on the trade front. Economic justice is appealing to both the right and the left this primary season, and both Trump and Sanders have capitalized.

Third, U.S. weakness. Americans are appalled over the continuing atrocities coming out of the Muslim world. Yes, it is Islamic extremists who drive this, but in country after country horror is on display.

President Obama's policy of containment and refusal to define the Islamic jihad as a true danger to the USA has lit a fuse of deep resentment in many American precincts.

Trump is not at all sympathetic to the Muslim world. Thus, he has captured the resentment over our perceived weakness.

Finally, political betrayal.

It is widely perceived that progressive Americans are on the march and traditional folks on the decline.

The question ‘where did my country go?’ captures that.

Trump portrays himself as an avenger - a man fed up with political correctness and the social fascism that often brings.

His outspoken attacks galvanize Americans who are bitterly disenchanted by a society that puts grievance above achievement, permissiveness above order.

After nearly eight years of the most liberal president in U.S. history, millions of voters have had enough of a social system that directly denigrates their values and caters to non-working individuals.

They want someone to blow that system to hell.

That's why Trump is winning. He pinpointed festering disenchantment long before anyone else.

And that's the memo.

Derailing Donald Trump

2016-04-26T03:08:00Z

As you may have heard, Ted Cruz and John Kasich are now working together, trying to deny Donald Trump the delegates he needs to win the Republican presidential nomination outright.

Tomorrow Trump is expected to dominate the primaries in the northeast.

So by Wednesday he could be close to 1,000 delegates, leaving him a bit more than 200 delegates short of winning the nod.

But now John Kasich says he will not campaign in Indiana, leaving Ted Cruz to go one-on-one with Trump there.

In kind, Cruz says he will not campaign in New Mexico and Oregon, so Kasich will take on Trump in those states.

Talking Points believes that strategy could deny Donald Trump some delegates -- especially in Indiana, a winner-take-all state.

The Real Clear Politics polling average in Indiana has Trump at 39%, Cruz 33% and Kasich 19%.

So you can see if some Kasich voters go to Cruz, he could defeat Mr. Trump.

For his part Trump is sneering at his competition:

TRUMP: “You know, if you collude in business, if you collude in business or if you collude in the stock market they put you in jail. But in politics, because it's a rigged system, because it's a corrupt enterprise, in politics you're allowed to collude. So they colluded, and actually I was happy. Because it shows how weak they are. It shows how pathetic they are.”

Talking Points believes there is nothing wrong with Cruz and Kasich banding together. Sometimes politics is intense, and that is the only way to deny Trump the delegates.

On the other side I continue to believe that Mr. Trump will be very close to winning the nomination outright.

And if he arrives in Cleveland and is denied, all hell will break loose.

Of course the beneficiary of all of this is Hillary Clinton, who is locked in a tight battle right now with Bernie Sanders in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Mrs. Clinton is well ahead in Pennsylvania.

But she does not have to worry about the establishment. They are firmly on her side, understanding that Bernie Sanders and his socialist philosophy would run into big trouble in a general election.

But the Republican establishment is not in favor of Donald Trump, and that's why the GOP is in such chaos.

He may be unstoppable, but at this point anything could happen in Cleveland.

And that's the memo.

The Death of Prince May Shed Some Light on the Drug Epidemic in America

2016-04-23T03:10:00Z

The nation is mourning the 57-year-old pop star who sold 100 million albums in his career.

I never met Prince, but I saw him perform and he was spectacular.

Many reports say that he was a nice guy and certainly deserves the accolades he is getting.

Out of respect for Prince's family, we will not delve into his personal situation but there are reports that he was drug involved.

And that leads us to an epidemic in America that is largely out of control -- yet the powerful are running away from it.

The essential problem is a combination of prescription painkillers - things like Percocet, which Prince may have been using after an operation - and OxyContin.

Those legal drugs have addicted millions and now we have a flood of cheap heroin, another opioid sweeping through the nation.

The stats are grim:

In 2014, more than 28,000 Americans died from opioid-overdoses, a record level.

That led to a 200% increase in overdose fatalities since the year 2000.

According to the federal government, from 2013 to 2014 heroin use among Americans rose 51%.

That is catastrophic in one year.

So there's no question the epidemic is under way, and few people understand how severe it is and what to do about it:

From the ABC News special "Heroin Across America"

FATHER: "Five o'clock in the morning I'm boarding a plane in Dallas airport. And my son Ben calls me and he says, dad, Aaron overdosed again. And I said, whoa whoa, what do you mean? He says, Aaron overdosed again. And I automatically was thinking, okay, what hospital is he at? Where did they take him? And he says, he didn't make it."

Over the years there have been literally millions of stories like that.

And it is simply stunning that our culture has evolved to a point where the sale and use of hard narcotics is now acceptable.

President Obama has led the way on this, classifying drug dealing as a quote "nonviolent crime."

That sends a signal to the country that, you know what, it may be illegal to sell drugs but it's not all that bad.

And the left is generally supporting the craziness.

O'REILLY: "Is selling heroin and crack on the street a violent crime?"

RUSSELL SIMMONS, HIP-HOP MOGUL: "What I'm saying is -"

O'REILLY:"That's an easy question. Can you answer that question?"

SIMMONS: "But 95 percent of the people who are incarcerated -"

O'REILLY:"Am I invisible? Are you not hearing me? Are you not hearing me?"

SIMMONS: "I don't think selling drugs is a violent crime."

Again, that is the prevailing wisdom on the left.

And on the use side there is no judgment either.

The legalization of pot is now favored by the majority of Americans.

And although marijuana is not even close to heroin and other hard drugs in destructive capacity, again pot acceptance sends a signal.

When I grew up in Levittown, a suburb of New York City, heroin and other hard drugs were rare until the Vietnam War.

Then some vets in my neighborhood returned from Southeast Asia addicted to heroin, called horse back then.

However, anyone who sold hard drugs was a pariah, an outcast, a vile human being.

And those who used drugs also were stigmatized, at least for a while, until the sex, drugs, and rock and roll culture kicked in -- the "If it feels good, do it" philosophy taking root.

The damage the drug acceptance brought was enormous. A few of my friends are dead. Others spent time in jail.

Today the drug culture is running wild in America.

And the vicious cartels, largely operating out of Mexico, are taking full advantage of that.

Tons of hard drugs come across the Mexican border. Everybody knows that. Yet the Democratic Party does not want a wall or to militarize the border.

And if you are arrested for selling heroin or other opioids, chances are you will not get serious prison time until you're caught five or six times.

So, you can see the permissive atmosphere surrounding the use of narcotics is now taking a very serious toll on this country.

Pretty much every American knows some family that's been grossly harmed by drug use.

It is long past time for powerful people to stop enabling the drug culture.

The use of pot by children is an atrocity.

The addictive capacities of heroin and other painkillers are enormous.

Once a person becomes drug-involved, his or her whole life is negatively affected.

Yet where are the anti-drug crusaders?

They are mocked by many in the media.

They are dismissed on college campuses.

They are seen as uncool by many in this culture.

Nancy Reagan's message was simple: "Just say no."

The message today is, it doesn't matter if you say yes, you're a victim and the thugs who provide the poison are low-level offenders who should not be harshly punished.

This is disgraceful and shameful. The drug culture is not a positive in any way for this country or for any citizen in it.

We are reaping what our cowardly leaders have sown - a drug epidemic that cuts across all boundaries.

That's the message that should be loud and clear in the media.

People selling hard drugs, they are not non-violent offenders. They are killing the weak and addicted at a historically high rate.

Countries like Singapore have stopped the madness by instituting tough anti-drug policies at all levels.

But the West will not do that and so the carnage will continue.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump and the Media

2016-04-22T03:54:00Z

From the very beginning Mr. Trump's run for the White House has been met with scorn from many in the national press.

There are a number of reasons. He's obviously a non-liberal candidate.

He has mobilized support by mentioning ethnic groups like Mexicans and Muslims in negative ways.

Also, he has used a variety of personal attacks against his opponents, although the media is no stranger to that technique.

However, the root cause of the media's disdain for Donald Trump is not his policy or behavior on the campaign trail.

It's him, who he is -- a wealthy man who is not politically correct who has made an enormous amount of money by selling himself in high-profile ways.

Mr. Trump knows the press is against him and uses that to stoke up his supporters.

TRUMP: “Look at those cameras zooming. They are most dishonest people in the world. The media! They are the worst! They are the worst! They’re very dishonest people. They are terrible! ((EDIT)) Do we hate the media? (CROWD: YEAH!!) I don’t hate anybody. I love the media. They’re wonderful. Hey, I guess we wouldn’t be here, maybe, if it wasn’t for the media, so maybe we shouldn’t be complaining, right?”

Now if that sounds like a mixed message, it is.

Trump understands that many of his supporters loathe the press, so he takes advantage of that.

But he also knows that if he wins the White House he will have to make some kind of arrangement with the press corps, thus he tempers his remarks somewhat.

But make no mistake. Trump knows the media will support Hillary Clinton and will denigrate him at every turn, sometimes savagely.

In New York, the Daily News -- a rank tabloid which will do just about anything, including denigrating those voting for Trump.

The Philadelphia Daily News, another down market tabloid, is the same kind of situation.

There are no limits.

But the network news and cable operations like CNN will be a bit more measured knowing that they will lose audience if they attack Trump outright.

In the end Donald Trump will not, will not get a fair shake from the press.

As the campaign against Hillary Clinton unfolds, things will become brutal and the press will try to rattle Mr. Trump.

They see him as personally unworthy, beneath them and destructive to their ideology.

Mr. Trump needs to begin preparing himself for the onslaught.

And that's the memo.

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

2016-04-20T23:31:00Z

Secretary Clinton's big victory in New York yesterday knocks Bernie Sanders pretty much out of the race.

Although Mrs. Clinton still faces an FBI investigation, barring an indictment over the email situation she will represent the Democratic Party in the presidential election.

Donald Trump also scoring big in New York, and now it looks like he will get the Republican nod.

Talking Points does not see a way for the GOP establishment to stop Mr. Trump, even if he doesn't have the 1,237 delegates needed to be nominated on the first ballot.

Simply put, Trump is so far ahead that Ted Cruz, John Kasich or any other Republican phantom simply does not have the constituency to take the nomination away from Trump.

Any back room dealings will be quickly exposed and will doom the Republican Party.

So I must admit that I am stunned.

As I said last night, the two most shocking political stories in my lifetime are the assassination of President Kennedy and the rise to political prominence of Donald J. Trump.

History will record that this was an uprising, a movement of the people supporting a candidate who has absolutely no ties to the political establishment.

Republican voters are so angry they don't care what Mr. Trump says about other people. They don't care if his programs are controversial. They simply want to hear his message stated in a blunt way.

Trump's strategy has been brilliant in mobilizing support. But it has also put him in a position where most Americans view him unfavorably, at least according to the polling.

The Real Clear Politics average has Mr. Trump's unfavorable rating at 65%, Hillary Clinton’s at 54%.

Those numbers can of course come down because now it's really a one-on-one race for the White House.

That being said, Bernie Sanders will likely hang in there because if Mrs. Clinton is indicted, he'll be in line for the nomination.

I also expect Ted Cruz to compete energetically in the remaining primaries and John Kasich to at least make it through the Northeast primaries that will come to a head next Tuesday.

All in all, tall cotton right now for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Whether you like them or not, you have to give both credit for entering a very tough arena and coming out victorious.

And that's the memo.

Is the Supreme Court Compromised?

2016-04-20T03:29:00Z

Is the Supreme Court Compromised?

Is it really looking out for the folks?

They are the ultimate power in America, justices on the high court. What they say goes even in matters of life and death. Hello Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court has one major limitation, however. It cannot make law from scratch, it can only uphold or strike down what Congress and state legislatures have already passed.

Enter President Obama, who is trying to redefine immigration law by ordering a quasi-amnesty for about four million illegal aliens.

Thus, by signing an executive order the president is changing federal immigration law, something that on paper only Congress has the power to do.

Led by Texas, 26 states have sued the federal government, saying that the president has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case.

Sadly, it is a foregone conclusion that the four liberal judges on the court will decide the issue based on their political beliefs, not what the Constitution says. This has been a pattern of behavior for decades.

Here's the proof.

The Solicitor General of Texas Scott Keller argued:

"Congress has to grant the statutory authority first for the [president] to be able to act."

But the very liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor replied:

"Those nearly 11 million unauthorized aliens are here in the shadows. They are affecting the economy whether we want [them] to or not. The answer is if Congress really wanted them not to have economic impact, it would allot the amount of money necessary to deport them, but it hasn't."

While that may or may not be true, so what?

Justice Sotomayor is not supposed to be concerned with forging policy for this nation. She does not have oversight over what Congress should do.

Her job is to rule on established law, not create it.

Talking Points urges all Americans to figure this out.

We now have a Supreme Court that is activist, political, not unbiased and devoted to protecting the balance of power vital to a free society.

There is no question that Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer will rule in favor of President Obama because they like his view on illegal immigration, even if it goes against the well-defined separation of powers.

And that is flat out dangerous.

Or am I wrong?

And that's the memo.

The Big Lie of the Presidential Campaign

2016-04-19T01:23:00Z

Apparently millions of American voters believe the federal government should be required by law to provide things for the folks – education, healthcare, good jobs, financial security in old age, on and on.

That belief runs counter to how America was established in the late 18th century when our first-elected officials put their game plan into effect.

Basically their vision was a limited one. Citizens would have basic freedoms to worship, vote, speak openly without being punished, assemble without interference, and pursue happiness within the framework of the law.

It was entirely up to the folks how they would use those freedoms. No one was forced to go to the voting booth as they are in Australia, no one was forced to believe in God as they were in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Today the question of individual choice -- the quest to succeed or fail on your own -- has almost been obliterated by politicians and judges who don't respect the concept of competition and the struggle to prosper.

In short, they are evolving away from how this country was established.

In addition, they are deceiving the American people into believing that their success and well-being will be almost assured by a giant federal nanny state, which is absolutely impossible in a nation of nearly 320 million people.

Politicians deceive because it is an easy way to seduce voters unhappy with their circumstance in life.

When Bernie Sanders tells Americans that the economic system is rigged against them, he destroys incentive.

Why work hard if the big banks will harm you no matter what? If I am failing, it's not my fault -- the phantom billionaires are hurting me.

Sanders is correct that the feds need to stop fraud in the marketplace, but his message of wall-to-wall capitalist corruption is false and pernicious.

When a guy like Rand Paul tells Americans that they should be able to intoxicate themselves at will and public safety be dammed, he gives license to behavior that has destroyed untold billions of people the world over. Not to mention the message that legalized drugs sends to children.

We don't live in a vacuum here. The condition of others can directly affect us, just look at the drunk-driving stats.

When Al Sharpton and his grievance lobby assert that black Americans are oppressed by a racist system bent on hurting them, he provides an excuse for a litany of apathetic and destructive behaviors.

The kid struggling in a bad school with parents who don't care needs all the encouragement leadership can give him or her, not a list of historical atrocities that can cause even more bitterness.

The cold fact is very few powerful people are willing to address vexing problems by telling the truth to the folks.

Here's what the government owes us:

Protection from foreign concerns who would harm us.

Protection from criminals who would harm us.

A secure border system whereby our immigration laws are enforced and respected.

An infrastructure of mass transportation that is safe and efficient. What the U.S. airlines are doing to their passengers is a scandal and the fact that we don't have a high-speed rail system is flat out irresponsible.

The government also has an obligation to protect our constitutional rights and to protect private property.

Seizing assets after an American dies is abhorrent. Many Americans work hard all their lives to give their children a better situation than they had.

Finally, it is the duty of those in power to foster a system that allows every single American a truly fair shot at material and emotional success.

That means schools with strong educational and disciplinary standards; subsidized benefits for the poor and infirmed that are delivered responsibly with clear guidelines; also, protections in the workplace against companies that would violate labor laws and exploit powerless employees.

That's the heart of what the government owes us and social engineering is not part of it, nor is free education, nor free health care, nor a free income if you choose to lay about.

Workers pay taxes to support the government, as well as for personal social security in old age, which the feds have mismanaged in the extreme.

We deserve honesty and responsible spending, not wasteful programs designed to secure votes.

Last week I spoke with Donald Trump about his promise to return jobs from overseas.

Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton all say they will punish American companies who move jobs abroad.

A president could certainly make life very difficult for corporations that ship jobs out, but the truth is that many of the lost jobs pay little and even if they do come back it's a marginal play.

The big problem is that millions of Americans are so poorly educated and personally irresponsible they simply cannot compete in the free marketplace.

So what are the power-seekers going to do about that?

Blank stares.

When I asked Mr. Trump how he would combat a culture among some young African-Americans that scorns conventional behavior, he replied that job growth would take care of it.

TRUMP: “My message is bringing jobs back to the country and they’re going to have jobs.”

((EDIT))

O'REILLY: “But how are you going to get jobs for them? Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads and, you know, how are you going -- and I hate to be generalized about it but it's true. If you look at all the educational statistics, how are you going to give jobs to people who aren't qualified for jobs?”

TRUMP: “We're going to bring jobs back. We're going to have Apple computers made in this country. Not just –“

O'REILLY: “But you have to have skills to make Apple computers and the educational system –“

TRUMP: “We will get the skills.”

O’REILLY: “What?”

TRUMP: “We will get the skills. We will develop the skills.”

Now the race hustlers, who apparently have not walked the streets of poor neighborhoods lately, immediately accused me of racism.

And that is why the acute problem of cultural deprivation among underclass children of all colors is never addressed. The smear merchants hammer anyone who does so.

It is beyond disgraceful that powerful people look away from the real problem.

Mr. Trump is noble in his intent to create jobs and train Americans to do them.

But that will require much more than trade deals and rhetoric.

It will require a cultural change in many working class and poor precincts. If you reject the conventional road to success -- education and hard work -- you will fail in our capitalistic system … no matter what kind of outlandish promises Bernie Sanders makes.

It is all about personal responsibility and motivation, and who is preaching that message? Who?

The truth is that individual motivation is being destroyed by phony politicians seeking power by promising an endless series of entitlements to a population that is moving away from achievement and into the gimme zone … gimme, gimme, gimme.

Until that deep cultural flaw is exposed, until the phonies, race hustlers and corporate greed heads are called out, we will continue to see big lies spouted by deceivers and enabled by a gutless media.

God help America.

And that's the memo.

The Truth about the Democrat Party

2016-04-16T03:33:00Z

For generations, the O'Reilly family based in Brooklyn, New York were mostly Democrats.

That's because my ancestors were working people – firefighters, cops, teachers, laborers.

And back then the Democrats fought to get working people more money.

So it was natural for my folks to embrace that party.

But now we have a different situation in America.

While the Democrats still promote themselves as friendly to working folks, they often pander to big labor and extremists on the social front.

Enter Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who debated last night in Brooklyn.

Mrs. Clinton came off as more presidential than Senator Sanders because she knows more about the world.

But she did have a few rough moments:

DANA BASH, CNN: “The question was about the transcripts of the speeches to Goldman Sachs. Why not release them?”

CLINTON: “I've said, look there are certain expectations when your run for president. This is a new one. And I've said if everybody agrees to do it (EDIT) lets set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, ok, I'll do it.”

That obviously is a dodge. Secretary Clinton does not want us to know what she said to Goldman Sachs.

For the record, Bernie Sanders never gave any speeches to fat cats, so there is nothing for him to release.

And the phrase “when everybody does it, I will” … come on.

If Hillary Clinton is going to portray herself as a warrior against Wall Street excess, then she has to tell us what she said to Goldman Sachs.

The other issues last night were predictable. Both candidates want few limits on abortion. They say that white privilege is a major problem in America. They want income redistribution … it's a litany of the liberal playbook.

Here was the most raucous moment, it involves the minimum wage:

CLINTON: “If we can raise it to $15 in New York, or Los Angles or Seattle then let’s do it!”

((EDIT))

SANDERS: “To suddenly to … suddenly … suddenly.”

(cross talk)

CLINTON: “If I could just … thank you… thank you.”

SANDERS: “To suddenly announce now that you’re for $15 … I don’t think is quite accurate.”

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: “Alright secretary.”

CLINTON: “Alright. I have said from the very beginning that I supported the fight for $15.”

Of course the whole thing is absurd.

Yes, the minimum wage should be raised in America. No one can live on seven bucks an hour.

And for those of you who say it will hurt business, so what? There has to be some kind of fairness in capitalism.

Also, if the minimum wage were, say $11-an-hour nationwide, that would give folks an incentive to work, which is what we want.

And you can phase that in. By 2025, for example, the minimum wage should be 15 bucks an hour.

But Bernie Sanders in particular should know that the higher the minimum wage, the fewer jobs there will be.

Also, prices will go up in places like Costco and Walmart, where working Americans shop.

Sanders and the Democrat Party seem to forget that.

You raise wages across the board, some businesses will cut back and prices will rise.

And there is nothing Bernie Sanders can do about that.

In the end, the Democrats are hoping to hold together a coalition of liberal Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and voters below the age of 30, who may not be as well informed as they should be.

No political party is perfect, but right now Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are running very far-left campaigns.

No question about it.

And that's the memo.

Is the Republican Party in Crisis?

2016-04-14T00:02:00Z

It is becoming clear that many major Republican politicians might not attend the convention in Cleveland this coming July.

As you may know, the party is split over Donald Trump. And he may very well secure the nomination.

However, Mr. Trump believes the system is rigged against him - pointing to Colorado, where Ted Cruz got all the delegates last weekend without a traditional vote by the folks.

TRUMP: “Our Republican system is absolutely rigged. ((EDIT)) This was a dirty trick, these are dirty tricksters. This is a dirty trick. And I’ll tell you what – the RNC, the Republican National Committee — they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of crap to happen. I can tell you that.”

Clearly, Mr. Trump is sending a signal. If he does not get the nomination, he will not go quietly into the night.

His point is that votes from human beings should be the deciding factor in the primaries.

But that has never been the case.

Beginning in 1832, party leaders have selected the candidates.

Today, the delegate system is chaos with each state deciding what kind of selection process will take place.

So in Colorado, the Republican Party chieftains select the delegates, not the folks.

It's even worse in the Democratic Party where so-called ‘super delegates’ can vote for whomever they want no matter who wins the direct voting primaries.

Talking Points believes that the system needs to be reformed. But it's not going to happen this year.

However, if Donald Trump is denied the nomination and has more votes than Ted Cruz or John Kasich, the Republican Party will fracture and Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States.

So you can see how desperate the situation is if you don't believe Hillary Clinton is suitable for the presidency.

Now opponents of Donald Trump believe that even though he is the vote leader right now, his support is thin nationwide.

Most polling backs that up.

So if he does get the nomination, the Republican Party could very well be slaughtered next November - not only on the presidential ticket, but also in the House and Senate.

It also should be noted that despite Mr. Trump's success, most Republican primary voters have not supported him.

He tops out at about 37%. But his support is loyal and fervent.

So this is one big mess. And while Bernie Sanders is offering a stiff challenge to Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side, there is no question that Mrs. Clinton will secure the nomination.

On the Republican side it's either going to be Trump or Cruz, but neither candidate will have the support of the entire party.

And that's the memo.

The Truth about Political Promises

2016-04-13T00:59:00Z

As we reported last night, the rise of Donald Trump to the top echelons of the Republican Party is one of the most stunning political stories in the past century.

Also, the campaign of Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton all she can handle, and who would have predicted that?

The popularity of both men is based on promises, things they say they will do if elected president.

Talking Points believes that many, perhaps most followers of Trump and Sanders do not really care whether the men can deliver.

It's their tone, point of view, philosophy that is mesmerizing millions of voters.

Because the truth is Sanders and Trump will not be able to do some of the things they are promising.

We believe they want to do them, but they will not be able to overcome our political structure.

Let's take Donald Trump first.

He says he will build a wall between the U.S.A. and Mexico. That is certainly possible.

It will not be a continuous wall. There are natural barriers that will stop that.

However, the construction of an effective barrier is possible and would happen if Trump is elected president:

TRUMP: “We are going to have a strong border – we are going to build a wall. It will be a real wall. A real wall! ((EDIT)) Who is going to pay for the wall?”

CROWD: “Mexico!”

TRUMP: “Who?”

CROWD: “Mexico!”

One problem: Mexico will not pay for the wall no matter what a President Trump might threaten.

His proposed action to stop Mexicans illegally in the USA from sending money back to their family and friends is impossible.

No one can stop the mail.

Mr. Trump also says he will deport perhaps as many as 12 million illegal aliens within two years.

Again, the courts would likely block a mass deportation and if they did not, each individual alien would have to have a court hearing before any action would be taken.

Right now the average wait time for an immigration hearing is about two years.

Realistically for a mass deportation to take place, hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be allotted. And even then, the actual movement of that many people would be unprecedented.

And what about Mr. Trump's wish to temporarily ban Muslims who live in areas dominated by terrorism from coming to America.

Again, the courts would likely block the action based on the equal protection clause, whereby you cannot single out a specific group for legislative action.

Finally, Donald Trump wants to force China from devaluing its currency.

He says if they do not stop that there will be a trade war.

Here Mr. Trump is on solid ground.

The trade deficit with China was $366 billion last year.

That means they get all of those billions free and clear above what we are buying from them.

Donald Trump could certainly renegotiate this appalling situation. That is a job killer for Americans.

On the Bernie Sanders front, it is a similar situation.

He says he will break up the big banks:

SANDERS: “They are too powerful economically, they are too powerful politically. And that is what I believe, and many economists believe. Time to break them up.”

Of course the courts would stop that. The only way the federal government can destroy a banking concern is if it poses "a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States."

No president can break up any private enterprise unless there is a drastic reason to do so, and then the federal apparatus would have to approve, not a single individual like a president.

Senator Sanders is also proposing much higher taxes for just about everybody in the country.

But he would never get that through Congress if Republicans hold even 40 senators in that chamber.

The GOP would block any drastic tax increase.

Sanders says he will defeat ISIS by somehow convincing the Muslim nations of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the Emirates to launch ground attacks against the terror group.

You can file this under amazing, fantasy, or, to be more kind, wishful thinking.

Only if the West leads would anti-ISIS Muslim nations initiate ground action.

Finally Senator Sanders wants to add $14 trillion in government spending over a 10-year period to provide healthcare run by the government.

The national debt is now approaching $20 trillion, so, again, this is a dangerous fantasy.

Sanders says he would raise taxes on business and workers to pay for the $14 trillion, but nearly every single analysis of the subject says the new taxes would not even come close to covering the health expense.

An out of control national debt could collapse the U.S. economy, and punitive taxation would likely strangle economic growth.

Senator Sanders is talking theory when reality dictates that the federal government must stop running up massive debt.

We are not Sweden here with nine million people.

All government programs are rife with wasteful spending and inefficient performance.

Does Sanders have a magic wand to fix that?

I mean we can't even provide an efficient health care system for our vets, and he believes the feds can serve 323 million people?

Come on.

Summing up, Trump could probably do two out of the five things he is promising.

Sanders, zero for five.

But again, it doesn't really matter to many American voters. They like what they are hearing from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and that's enough.

And that's the memo.

The Democratic Party and Your Physical Safety

2016-04-12T03:30:00Z

Like him or not, former President Bill Clinton is an excellent analyst of the American political scene.

Last week confronted by Black Lives Matter militants in Philadelphia, who say the criminal justice system is racist, Mr. Clinton fought back.

BILL CLINTON: “I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out on the street to murder other African-American children.”

Mr. Clinton is absolutely correct, the vicious drug world results in millions of Americans being harmed.

Dope pushers and gang members should be incarcerated.

But after saying what he said, Mr. Clinton came under pressure from his own party and may have buckled.

BILL CLINTON: “I did something yesterday in Philadelphia, I almost want to apologize for it, but I want to use it as an example of the danger threatening our country.”

So why would Bill Clinton almost want to apologize? What he is saying is true.

Here are the facts:

According to FBI data, between 1960 and 1990 the rate of violent crime in the USA surged by 350%.

Violence in cities like New York, Detroit, Los Angeles was out of control.

And people in the poor neighborhoods took the brunt of it.

In 1970 convicted murderers in America served a median sentence of just 3.5 years for murder.

That was insane, so Bill Clinton and both political parties finally did something about it: They passed tough new sentencing laws.

The result: Violent crime has dropped drastically since the mid-1990s to historic lows today.

That is the truth, tough sentencing for violent offenders drove crime down in the USA big time.

Now the race question.

Again, according to FBI data, from 1976 to 1995 black Americans were identified by police as committing more than half of the homicides in the USA.

African-Americans make up 13% of the population.

In addition, a national crime victims survey reported that blacks committed robberies at a rate of 60%.

Again, the black community is just 13% of the population.

So what's the beef if black Americans are committing crimes out-of-proportion to other ethnic groups, why is there a racial component to their presence in prison?

Also, forget about the drug myth.

Right now in federal penitentiaries 99.5% of drug-convicted inmates are traffickers, not users.

99.5% percent.

So the question becomes, why is the Democratic Party caving into propaganda put out by radical groups like Black Lives Matter?

It is clear that tough sentencing reform spearheaded by both parties and signed by Bill Clinton saved perhaps millions of American lives.

Yet the entire criminal justice system is now being branded as racist and oppressive.

Disgraceful.

And that's the memo.

New York Values

2016-04-08T04:11:00Z

First off, brand new Monmouth poll about the New York primary on April 19th.

Right now hometown boy Donald Trump leads with 52%.

John Kasich, 25%.

Senator Ted Cruz, 17%.

If that holds, Mr. Trump will get most of the New York delegates and he will once again have momentum.

The disadvantage for Mr. Cruz is the New York values debate.

You'll remember that in January the senator said this:

CRUZ: “Everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.”

Now Donald Trump is using that statement to hammer Ted Cruz:

TRUMP: “Do you remember during the debate when he started lecturing me on ‘New York Values’ like we're no good? Like we’re no good. [CROWD BOOS] ((EDIT)) And I’ve got this guy standing over there looking at me talking about New York values with scorn in his face.”

The truth is that New York City values are very left wing.

But the rest of the state lines up fairly conservative, although not at the level of Mr. Cruz.

However, as in any state New Yorkers are sensitive, so the senator has to overcome his initial New York values comments.

I your humble correspondent am a born and raised New Yorker.

But I've lived all over the country – Dallas, Denver, Portland, Oregon, Boston, Miami.

And I can tell you that New York is a different kind of place, especially because there are nearly 20 million people in the Big Apple metropolitan area.

With that many folks you have to be more aggressive, and some around the country consider that to be rude.

On the political front the Democratic Party is firmly in control of New York State, very similar to California.

Even though Donald Trump is likely to win the Republican primary here, he will have a very tough time in New York State up against Hillary Clinton in the general election.

As Talking Points reported last night, New York is a machine state and the Democrat machine dominates.

As for Ted Cruz, he is a conservative Texan who now has to convince jaded New Yorkers that he is not denigrating them, that he was simply pointing out Donald Trump's past history of giving donations to people like Hillary Clinton and Governor Andrew Cuomo.

But as we pointed out, Mr. Trump did that as a real estate guy and in this city business people have to spread the money around if they want to get things done.

Talking Points believes that Donald Trump is a conservative, although not nearly as right wing as Mr. Cruz is.

Bottom line, if Ted Cruz wants to keep Donald Trump below 50% in New York, he's got a lot of hard work to do.

And that's the memo.

Who Wants To Be President?

2016-04-07T00:35:00Z

Both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders have new momentum tonight after beating their opposition by wide margins in Wisconsin.

The media running wild with speculation about what the vote really means.

Let's calm down.

First of all Bernie Sanders will not defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.

Wisconsin is a largely white state and minority voters are breaking big for Mrs. Clinton, who will win the New York primary with room to spare.

Senator Sanders is waging a spirited campaign, but the fix is in. The super-delegates, who can vote for anyone they want, are large for Hillary.

End of story.

On the Republican side it's a bit different.

Donald Trump remains the frontrunner and will also do well in New York.

That might re-charge his campaign, but maybe not.

Last night after losing in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump issued a statement calling Ted Cruz names.

Not presidential, not a smart move.

It seems the Trump campaign is confused.

We were hoping the candidate would appear on The Factor this evening. We negotiated with his team for days, but he declined.

That of course is his prerogative.

Apparently there is angst in the Trump campaign because Charles Krauthammer in particular sometimes hammers the candidate on The Factor.

But each time Charles addresses Mr. Trump, I put someone like Newt Gingrich who has been kind to Trump on to balance the presentation.

We have been very fair to Donald Trump on this program, but that does not mean we will not critique him or cancel guests who have a dim view of him.

We provide balance and Charles Krauthammer is challenged, as are all the guests.

It's ironic because just last night I stuck up for Donald Trump on the race issue:

TAVIS SMILEY, TALK SHOW HOST: “It took Mr. Trump too long to come around to denouncing one David Duke and others …”

O'REILLY: “But Tavis, you make mistakes and so do I. That doesn't mean …”

SMILEY: “Bill, that's not a mistake. That's not a mistake.”

((EDIT))

O'REILLY: “All I can tell you is that, I have known the man a long time and I have never seen him cast aspersions at any group at all.”

Now I have said over and over that you do not call someone a racist based on a rhetorical mistake.

Trump has defined his position on Duke, and we should accept the explanation unless there is direct evidence of racism on Trump's part, which there is not.

As Talking Points has stated, it is not racist to support a wall on the border or stringent vetting of Muslims entering the USA from terrorist precincts.

I would hope the Trump campaign would notice how fair we have been and stop the nonsense.

Perhaps they will after tonight because the more tough questions Mr. Trump faces directly, the more voters may be persuaded to back him.

His current level of support is not enough to secure the White House.

To be completely fair, Donald Trump is right to be cautious with the media.

Here's a vivid example:

CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: “You don't feel ill-served to go on, for example a very popular talk radio show, and you said you didn't know that they had been leading an anti-Trump …”

DONALD TRUMP: “No, because if you listen to that - I don't mind that, you go into the enemy camp sometimes. You have to take on the enemy. He's not a very smart guy, not a very bright guy, and if you listen to the entire show, you would say Donald Trump won that debate. ((EDIT)) So sometimes you go into unfriendly territory, that's part of the game.”

CHRIS JANSING: “And that's what you consider Wisconsin to be?”

DONALD TRUMP: “No, you said about a radio talk show host. That's what I mean about the dishonest media.”

CHRIS JANSING: “I'm asking you a question and allowing you to answer.”

TRUMP: “Excuse me. You're asking me about a show host. And I said that he was unfriendly territory. And you said, is that Wisconsin? That's so dishonest. You know what that's called? Dishonest media. That’s called dishonest reporting.”

Trump is correct, but that would never happen on this program and he knows it.

On the other side we are also awaiting Bernie Sanders entering the No Spin Zone.

He used to chat with us all the time before he became famous.

Last night I closely watched the senator's victory speech:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: “I am not naive. I know the power of Wall Street and their endless supplies of money. I know that corporate America will shut down plants in America and move to Mexico or China if they can make another $5 in profit. I know that billionaires are funding candidates whose job it is to represent the wealthy and the powerful.”

Sanders basically gives the same speech every time, but gives it passionately.

He really believes what he is doing is noble, listing a litany of imperfections that working-class folks face.

Sanders is tapping into the same anger Trump is tapping into, only from a different place.

He promises to make life better for working people by slapping around corporations and rich Americans.

He promises an endless series of entitlements, most of which would be free for those not making much money.

The problem is Bernie Sanders does not have solutions to vexing problems that are far more important than giveaways.

Islamic terrorism? Bernie says Sunni Muslims should take care of it.

Putin? Bernie has nothing.

Iran? Nothing.

Illegal immigration? Looks like Bernie supports the open border policy espoused by many on the far left … anyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of America without restraint.

Crime? Bernie laments that so many criminals are in prison even though violent crime in the USA has dramatically fallen once tough felony sentencing was put into place.

A national debt of $20 trillion? Bernie has no problem adding to it.

Job creation? Bernie wants the federal government to mandate salaries and provide jobs for everyone … taxation through the roof for American corporations and the wealthy.

Of course that would lead to a huge contraction in the private sector, as business would stop expanding.

Senator Sanders says free health care is a human right and many corporations provide generous health benefits right now.

But they would not if the government is going to provide health care and demand higher corporate taxes.

On the plus side Senator Sanders is perhaps the most sincere politician in the presidential race. He walks the walk.

Problem is the walk leads nowhere as serious problems mount.

If we have to depend on the Sunnis to protect us from terror killers, if we are willing to double the national debt and risk an economic collapse, if we say to the entire world, “hey come on over and get some free stuff.”

If we are aiming for all that we are doomed.

Finally, the bold prediction I promised in the open:

Ted Cruz will offer John Kasich the vice president slot before the Republican convention begins. It's a delegate and Ohio play.

And that's the memo.

Big Night for the Republican Party

2016-04-06T03:55:00Z

So here I am on the election set as we await the vote tally from Wisconsin where the polls close in less than an hour.

Important night for the GOP.

If Donald Trump wins, he will likely get the nomination.

If he loses in Wisconsin, a much longer nominating process will kick in and Ted Cruz will pick up some steam.

Both Cruz and Trump have called for John Kasich to drop out no matter what happens tonight, but that is not likely to happen.

A Wall Street Journal editorial today says that the governor may bide his time until the convention in July, hoping he can win the nomination on delegates who defect after the first ballot.

It's all very complicated, but if Trump does not get the 1,237 delegates needed, there will be a big fight in Cleveland high noon drama.

A non-scientific poll on BillOReilly.com asked, "Should John Kasich quit the race?"

77% say yes
23% say no

Nearly 35,000 of you voted.

But if you look at it from the governor's point of view, he thinks he has a chance if the controversial Trump and the ideological Cruz do not have the delegates to win the nomination outright.

Similar situation on the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders hanging tough knowing that Hillary Clinton controls more delegates.

But Mrs. Clinton has that FBI thing that "Is It Legal?" will define for us later.

If Hillary is indicted over the email deal, Sanders believes he can win the nomination. So why not hang on?

The Trump campaign seems to understand that their guy has to broaden his base by being more specific.

Mr. Trump now says he will stop Mexican nationals in the USA both illegal and legal from sending U.S. dollars back home if Mexico does not contribute billions to build a wall on the border.

Another controversial plan, but one that goes beyond the general statement that Mexico will pay for the wall, that I can tell you.

American voters deserve specifics in a very important election, and it looks like the Trump campaign is responding to that.

We have asked Mr. Trump to appear with us tomorrow, and I hope he will be here.

Summing up, Wisconsin matters and we'll know what the voters think in less than 60 minutes.

That's the memo.

White Grievance and the Republican Party

2016-04-05T03:09:00Z

All the polls say the same thing: Donald Trump's rise is being fueled largely by white men who are angry with both political parties.

At this point 47% of Republican women say they will not vote for Mr. Trump, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

So it is the guys who have catapulted the candidate to the top of the Republican primary pack.

According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump is favored by 50% of Republican voters who make less than $50,000 a year, most of them men.

Also, Mr. Trump is supported by just 32% of Republicans who have college degrees, according to polling from 20 Republican primary states.

So you can see that Trump's support is largely coming from working-class white men who feel aggrieved.

Now we've seen this before. The black grievance industry is a powerful presence in America.

That group sells the notion that most problems in the African-American precincts are caused by white people and historical oppression.

While the media gives that view a lot of attention, most African-Americans reject the propaganda.

A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation says that 61% of American blacks believe the breakup of the African-American family is a major reason for the economic deprivation and social problems in the black community.

On the white side the issue is similar.

Many white Americans believe that illegal immigration hurts their job prospects and are angered by changing neighborhoods and social patterns.

Their refrain is often, I want my country back.

These voters are tired of seeing welfare doled out to people who are not motivated to succeed.

They are angry that terrorists are not being contained.

They see the Republican Party as largely cowardly in the face of political correctness.

The white grievance crew also believes they are being oppressed economically and that nobody is looking out for them.

Enter Donald Trump, who vividly reflects the anger, who has criticized his own party for being weak.

Now both the black and white grievance movements have some legitimate points.

There is no question that in poor black neighborhoods schools are generally deficient because the property tax base is low.

So poor black children are not being educated as well as affluent children.

That's true.

On the white side, here's a simple example: The Republican Party did not get behind Kate's Law, which would have harshly punished illegal alien felons who defy deportation.

While GOP senators like Grassley, McCain and Cruz did actively try to get Kate's Law passed, the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not.

And in general Republican politicians did not raise the flag on this issue.

I mean, when you control both houses of Congress and you cannot get Kate's Law passed, there is a serious problem.

Again, Donald Trump has tapped into that chaos.

Going forward, Mr. Trump's nomination is not a lock.

He has made mistakes and will have to win over millions of Americans who do not believe he is qualified.

If you believe the polls, Mr. Trump is in for a rough day tomorrow in Wisconsin.

That being said, the issue of white grievance is not going away and Trump will maintain a loyal level of support.

Many of his supporters are furious, and if Mr. Trump does not get the nomination, the stay-home vote next November is likely to be substantial.

And that's the memo.

What We've Learned from the Terror Attack in Brussels

2016-03-25T03:46:00Z

Number one thing: President Obama will not engage the ISIS savages in a meaningful way.

He simply believes that getting involved in a shooting war with Islamic terrorists is bad for the USA.

No matter what happens, short of another 9/11, the president is not going to change his opinion.

Yesterday in Argentina he said this:

OBAMA: “Groups like ISIL can't destroy us. They can’t defeat us. They can't produce anything. They're not an existential threat to us. ((EDIT)) We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak.”

So to recap, the president just said that we can defeat ISIS in part by telling them they are weak.

Now if I had told you that without showing you the tape, you would have mocked me. At least the far-left would have.

So to repeat, the president is not going to use American resources to defeat ISIS.

Second thing we've learned: Europe is in chaos.

As you know, millions of mostly Islamic refugees are pouring into Western Europe.

Nobody knows who they are, nobody knows what they're doing.

In Belgium where the bombers struck this week intelligence agents cannot tap telephones, they cannot look into computers, and police are restrained from raiding private homes from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.

And Belgium wonders why it is a terror target?

The incredible laxity on immigration and the ultra-liberal policing have made Europe the easiest target in the world for ISIS.

And believe me if the far left had its way here, we'd be just like Belgium.

The third thing we've learned is that there is still no cohesive strategy at the federal level to neutralize terror acts or to secure the border of the USA.

Even liberal broadcasters understand there is no leadership in place to defeat ISIS:

TOM BROKAW: “We have got to put together some kind of a bulletproof syndicate to deal with all of this. There's a real urgency about it. And he has got to convey that not just to the American people, but to the world. I think it was Mike Hayden who said earlier, he is the leader of the free world and this is the time to be the leader.”

Mr. Brokaw referring to President Obama and I'm not exactly sure what a bulletproof syndicate means.

We asked Mr. Brokaw for clarification; we did not get it.

But the point is that even some liberal Americans understand the danger posed by the jihad.

And they also understand little is being done about it.

Talking Points is again going on the record, as we told you last night, there is a likelihood of ISIS attacking with weapons of mass destruction.

The longer the USA dithers, the worse we are going to suffer down the road.

And there is no question we are dithering.

And that's the memo.

Hillary Clinton, Terror Warrior

2016-03-24T03:00:00Z

It was good to see the Wall Street Journal editorialize today that the only way to stop ISIS committing mass murder in the future is to confront them at their source in Syria, Iraq and now Libya.

Talking Points said that again last night. It has been a major theme of this program for years.

Unfortunately most Western leaders are afraid to do that, pointing to the debacle in Iraq and the tremendous problems in Afghanistan as a reason to avoid meaningful confrontation with Islamic killers.

But if we do not attack the savages, the world will continue to absorb violent terror incidents. They will never stop.

Enter Hillary Clinton, who may become president.

Today at Stanford University she spoke about the ISIS threat:

HILLARY CLINTON: "On 9/11, NATO treated an attack against one as an attack against all. On September 12th, headlines across Europe, most notably in Le Monde, proclaimed 'We Are All Americans.' ((EDIT)) Now it's our turn to stand with Europe."

But what does that mean, stand with Europe?

We analyzed Mrs. Clinton's speech today and can find no concrete action she is proposing to defeat the ISIS savages.

Instead she used her platform today to attack Republicans:

HILLARY CLINTON: "It would also be a serious mistake to begin carpet bombing populated areas into oblivion. Proposing that doesn't make you sound tough, it makes you sound like you're in over your head. Slogans aren't a strategy."

On that Hillary Clinton and I agree, but again, what is her strategy to stop the terror killings plaguing the world?

What is it?

If Talking Points hears about alliances one more time, cardiac arrest may follow.

Let's stop the BS, people are dying, innocent people.

ISIS is like the black plague marching through Europe, killing at random.

There is a report today that 400 terrorists have been dispatched by ISIS to cause damage in Europe.

The solution to defeating Islamic terrorism lies in brute force, not dumb suggestions that the Kurds handle things ... that kind of blather.

America needs a strong leader who will sit down with the smartest military people and map out a clear fighting plan.

Then NATO needs to declare war on the ISIS group.

Then every Muslim nation needs to be asked to pledge troops to help NATO fight ISIS.

No more dithering, no more sloganeering.

Because, and mark my words, a weapon of mass destruction will be used by the ISIS savages. It is just a matter of time.

And that's the memo.

Destroying ISIS, Does America Have the Will?

2016-03-23T03:35:00Z

Shortly before 8:00 a.m. Belgian time, two suicide bombers attacked the Brussels airport, setting off two explosions.

Then a short time later another bomb exploded in the Brussels subway system.

At this point tonight, more than 30 people are dead, more than 200 injured and ISIS is claiming responsibility.

Ironically, just last night on The Factor my Talking Points Memo partially dealt with the terror group.

O’REILLY: “Right now, the jihad is on the move in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. President Obama has dithered, allowing ISIS and other groups to grow stronger. It's got to stop.”

Now I have been saying for years that President Obama's strategy to contain ISIS is dangerous and puts the world at risk.

The solution is to mobilize the NATO alliance against the savages and take the fight to them.

Right now many Muslim extremists believe the jihad is working, that they are winning an armed struggle against the infidels of the West.

And it's not hard to see how that kind of propaganda takes root when ISIS and other Muslim extremists continue to kill at will.

The USA and other powerful Western nations are basically fighting a war of reaction, allowing ISIS to commit atrocities and then reacting to those atrocities, often with words not action.

That strategy has failed.

Here's the proof, listen to what happened just last year:

On January 7, Muslim killers murdered 12 people in a Paris magazine office; 11 others were injured.

Two days later four people were killed by an Islamic terrorist inside a kosher grocery in Paris.

On March 18, 22 people were murdered by terrorists in Tunisia.

On June 26^th, 38 people were murdered, again in Tunisia.

On July 16, a Muslim killer murdered four U.S. Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

On October 31^st, ISIS claimed responsibility for bombing a Russian airliner, killing 224 people in Egypt.

On November 13^th, ISIS savages attacked a concert hall in Paris -- killing 130, injuring 368.

On December 2, 14 people were killed 22 seriously hurt when two ISIS-inspired killers gunned them down in San Bernardino, California.

And just three days ago in Istanbul, Turkey a suicide bomber killed five people, wounding 35.

So you can see how aggressive ISIS is, and we haven't even talked about the Muslim killings in sub-Saharan Africa. Hundreds have been murdered there.

And what has President Obama done about it? Very little. ISIS is not afraid of him.

Today the presidential contenders reacted:

HILLARY CLINTON: “We've got to tighten our security. I talked about our visa system and our passenger name record system. (EDIT) But it's unrealistic to say we're going to completely shut down our borders to everyone.”

((EDIT))

BERNIE SANDERS: “We need to forge a coalition of the Muslim countries in the region, including some that have not been as active as they should be, with the support of the United States and other major powers to finally destroy this barbaric organization.”

What Senator Sanders is saying is we should abdicate our responsibilityto defeat ISIS, transferring it to Muslim countries.

Apparently the man believes it is not our fight despite the worldwide carnage.

On the Republican side, reaction also came quickly.

DONALD TRUMP: “We need surveillance. You have to deal with the mosques whether we like it or not. These attacks aren’t done by Swedish people – that I can tell you.”

((EDIT))

KASICH: “I think we have been too lax, not aggressive enough against this kind of radicalism.”

((EDIT))

TED CRUZ: “The attack in Brussels is in many ways the fruit of a failed immigration policy in Europe that has allowed a massive influx of radical Islamic terrorists into Europe.”

Senator Cruz will be here in just a few moments.

As far as President Obama is concerned, I hate to use a cliché but it's same old same old.

OBAMA: “We must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism. We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world.”

For seven years Mr. Obama has been saying stuff like that and for seven years Islamic terrorism has grown in ferocity even though the President himself will not use those words, "Islamic terrorism."

Talking Points has put forth a solution that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the most powerful military alliance on the planet, declare war on the Muslim jihad.

After doing that NATO forces would attack selected sites where ISIS is based.

NATO would also set up safe zones in places like Syria and Libya so refugees would not have to chaotically migrate to other countries.

NATO would ask all the Muslim nations on Earth to contribute forces as well.

Then the world would see which Muslims are interested in justice and which are not.

It is simply incredible that on this planet a jihadist group comprised of about 30,000 savages can wreak this much destruction and still sit down to dinner tonight without any fear of reprisal.

I mean think about it, we all know where the ISIS thugs are: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and now Afghanistan.

Their movements are not secret. They wage active military campaigns, and yet President Obama and the leaders of the NATO nations have done little to neutralize this threat to the world.

Again the jihadists believe they are winning and that leads to more recruits, more terrorists willing to blow themselves up in the pursuit of murdering innocent people to impose Islamic culture.

It is long past time for the American people to demand responsible leadership in Washington. Yes President Obama is a weak leader against the jihad, but Congress is not exactly following in the steps of General George Patton, either.

And the blather coming out of the Democrat Party in general is stunning.

As mentioned, Bernie Sanders has absolutely no clue or even an interest in defeating the jihad.

And Hillary Clinton, the architect of the Libya mess, doesn't seem to have a strategy either.

On the Republican side, no candidate has called for a NATO involvement and the United States cannot do this alone, nor should we.

The world needs to be mobilized, but in order to do that a strong leader must sound the alarm.

Barack Obama is not that person, nor is Angela Merkel, or David Cameron or any of the other European chieftains.

Right now there is no one willing to stand up to this ISIS scourge.

No one.

And that's the memo.

Destroying ISIS, Does America Have the Will?

2016-03-23T03:30:00Z