PolitiFact: 73 Percent of Trump's Statements Are False

PolitiFact has looked at Donald Drumpf's statements and finds that 73 percent of his statements are false.

"He is a sociopathic liar. He doesn't care. He may not even know he's lying anymore. He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You'll never see his income tax. Not because there's something going on there. But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million."

Should that be true, what would it say about the character of man who refuses to release tax returns so people won't find out his whole life is a lie?  

Additionally, it's well-documented that Drumpf quickly turns from friend to foe should he feel threatened.

"If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you," Glenn said.

Here's a sampling of Drumpf's grade school name-calling:

Erick Erickson — a total low life

Arianna Huffington — a liberal clown

Chuck Todd — pathetic

Charles Krauthammer — a loser and a jerk

Bob Vander Plaats — a phony and a con man

Glenn Beck — a dopey idiot

An article today in the Weekly Standard, written by Stephan Hayes, makes one ponder this pertinent question:

If Drumpf condemns anyone he dislikes, why does he go soft on David Duke and the KKK?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN:  It's Super Tuesday, and it's much more serious than it sounds, the responsibility on each of our shoulders today, to do our homework before we walk into our polling locations.  The fate of America rests on your shoulders.  But no pressure.  We start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN:  Hello, America.  And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.  Today from Washington, DC, and the studios at WMAL, I want to thank 1000 KTOK for hosting us yesterday in Oklahoma City and WMAL for hosting us today in Washington, DC, as we prepare for CPAC that is happening this weekend.  We'll be broadcasting from there Thursday and Friday and talked to some of the people at CPAC.  Max Lucado is going to be on with us today, as is Ted Cruz.  

It is Super Tuesday.  25 percent of all the delegates will be assigned by tomorrow morning.  And it's going to be pretty hard to -- to stop Donald Drumpf at this point.  Not impossible.  But pretty hard to stop.  I'm looking at the news today, and I find it interesting that all of these people are coming out with these plans to stop Donald Drumpf.

And the one I keep hearing about is insanity.  And it's Marco Rubio's plan, not to win any of the -- any of the contest today.  His plan is not to win any of the contest, but to believe just to have enough delegates to go to a brokered convention.  The other plan is to have the G.O.P. kick Donald out and run somebody else in his stead.

What kind of banana republic do we live in?  I am not a fan of Donald Drumpf, nor will I vote for Donald Drumpf.  But I have to tell you, if the American people say they're going to vote for Donald Drumpf, the G.O.P. was the one that made the deal.  The G.O.P. was the one that said, "You have to run -- you can't run for third party."  You think you're going to take his delegates away and not start a civil war?  You think you're going to kick him out of the party and not start a civil war?

The G.O.P. is done.  They're just done.  They didn't get it.  They have no idea why Donald Drumpf has any kind of traction at all.  And none of their plans include the guy who is number two in the delegate count.  They refuse to look at the guy who actually is going to win some states today.  Why?

Because he's anti-establishment.  Because he will stop all of this nonsense that's happening in Washington.  So why get behind that guy?  You got to get behind the guy that doesn't win any states.  That doesn't make any sense.

Because the establishment is still all about power.  It's all about control.  We have gone down this road now of progressivism far too long.  And people don't see it.  I got up this morning and I was thinking about it.  I was watching the news and I thought, "You know, it's amazing to me -- it's amazing to me.  This guy, Donald Drumpf, would be laughed out if he was running for Democrats.  We would laugh at him.  We would all say, oh, my gosh, bring it on.  Exactly what Hillary Clinton doing."

There's a new story out about how Hillary Clinton is salivating at Donald Drumpf.  By the way, new poll out shows Donald Drumpf does not beat Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head.  And they haven't even begun.  Look at what the New York Times said yesterday.

New York Times has an off the record, confidential meeting with Donald Drumpf back in January.  Where supposedly he said, "Look, everything is negotiable.  Don't worry about it.  I know you're all freaked out."  But basically what he said -- what was it on Greta, I can be anything.  I'm going to be changing rapidly once I get the nomination.  I'll be changing rapidly.  I can be whatever I need to be at the time.  Basically he said that, apparently to the New York Times, in a confidential meeting, that everything is negotiable, and the stuff he's saying on the border, don't worry about.

Well, I called yesterday for Donald Drumpf to demand that the New York Times release that audiotape.  Because they said they will, but they can't release it because it was a confidential meeting.  And they can't release it without his permission.  But if they ask, if Donald Drumpf asks, they will release it. 

Well, I think this is an outrageous lie by the New York Times.  Donald Drumpf has said many times that he thinks one of the biggest liars is the New York Times.  I happen to agree with him.  I think that he should demand that the New York Times produce that tape.  And show that he did not indeed say those things.

Except he was on Hannity last night, talking about it.  When he spoke to Sean, he said, "Well, look, yes, a lot of things are negotiable.  But the New York Times is a liar."  Well, if the New York Times is a liar, you should -- you should demand that the tape be released and then sue them.

Don, I know you love to sue them.  You love to sue them.  Suing is a way of life with you.  Because to quote you:  You get greedy.  And you say, "Give me the money.  Give me the money."  And you grab and you grab and you grab.  That's a quote from you.  

So I know you're greedy, which is another beautiful, wonderful, uge, Christian characteristic.  But I know you get greedy and you want to grab.  So sue them.  Because you have them dead to rights.  They are hurting your reputation by saying that you are telling the American people one thing and doing the exact opposite.  Because we know you would never do that.  That's ridiculous to assume and insulting to you.

He won't call for the release of that tape.  Guarantee it.  Because I bet you my house, that what's on that tape is exactly what the New York Times says is on that tape.  Because Donald Drumpf is a liar.

Nobody wants to hear that about people.  PolitiFact has looked at his statements and 76 percent of his statements -- or, 73 percent of his statements are false.

He is a sociopathic liar.  He doesn't care.  He may not even know he's lying anymore.  He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head.  You'll never see his income tax.  Not because there's something going on there.  But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million.

Just so you can put that into perspective, that's what -- that's about what Forbes magazine says I'm worth.  So that knocks Donald Drumpf down lots of pegs.  By the way, I'm not worth that.

But imagine if it meant something to me.  What would that say something about my character, if I was like, "No, I'm worth more than that.  Oh, man, how dare they say that I'm only worth $150 million.  I'm worth a billion dollars.  I'm worth $500 million."  What would that say about me?

I laugh at the numbers that they always quote from me because that's what my company does in revenue.  That's not what I get paid.  One of my companies hasn't even paid me in five years.

But what would it say about a man's character if you wouldn't release your tax returns because you just didn't want people to know how much you really are worth because your whole life is a lie?  

The other thing that I think Donald Drumpf, the reason why he's not releasing his tax returns, is because he's not as charitable as he says he is.  He says he's been giving money for years to vets.  My guess is, his charitable contributions are less than 2 percent.  I'll bet you that they're zero.  But definitely worth less than 2 percent.

He raises money through the Drumpf Foundation or the Drumpf -- he goes and asks other people to give money.  And then he doesn't give money himself.

And, by the way, there's people asking now, "Why hasn't he delivered on the charity funds that he promised in Iowa?"  You would think -- I don't even understand this story.  You have -- you've selected the charities, why haven't you given the money to the charities?  The money is there, you've selected the charities, why haven't you just released the funds?

Anybody see the John Oliver, just amazing monologue of 20 minutes taking down Donald Drumpf?  Stu, Pat, Jeffy, have you seen -- you saw the whole monologue?

PAT:  Yeah.  We talked about some of it yesterday.

STU:  Yeah.  We talked about some of --

GLENN:  Yeah, go ahead.

STU:  We talked about some of it yesterday.  And one of the things we talked about was that he had the exact same experience we had with Donald Drumpf, in which Drumpf also accused him and Jon Stewart of wanting him on the show and Drumpf said no.  So that's the only reason those people hate him, which is the exact same thing he said about us.  And not true in either circumstance.

GLENN:  Yeah.

PAT:  Can you imagine thinking so much of yourself that if somebody -- if you tell somebody you're not going to do an interview with them, that that's the sole reason that they don't like you from then on.  I mean, that's -- you think a lot of yourself when it's just, "Wow, he didn't do an interview with us.  So now we hate his guts and we're going to destroy this man."  It's so pathetic.

GLENN:  Not only how much do you think of yourself, what do you think the world is like?  I mean, what kind of world do you live in, where because -- it's usually self-diagnosis.  You know, when somebody like this says something about you.  They're usually diagnosing themself.  They see the things in others that is in them.

So he is like that.  If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you.  And so he thinks that everybody else -- because you won't do an interview.  I won't do an interview.  You must want to destroy me.  No, that's you in your sick, twisted world.  That's you, man.

STU:  Yeah.  And the Weekly Standard had a great point on this today, which is -- I mean, we all know the way -- what Drumpf does with people he doesn't like.  What does he do to people he doesn't like?  Erick Erickson, a total low-life.  Arianna Huffington, a liberal clown.  Chuck Todd, pathetic.  Charles Krauthammer, a loser and a clown.  Bill Kristol, a sad case.  Bob Vander Plaats is a phony and a con man.

PAT:  Jeez.

GLENN:  Jeez.

STU:  We already know, the things he's called Glenn fills up a whole page of the New York Times insult list.  In fact, the New York Times provided a catalog of the 199 people, places, and things Donald Drumpf has insulted on Twitter.  A complete list, which, of course, is not actually a complete list.  

But here's the point from the Weekly Standard which is brilliant today:  After a year of his candidacy, the political world knows well what it looks like when Donald Drumpf wants to offer an unequivocal condemnation.  When it comes to David Duke and the KKK, we still haven't seen one.  

He hasn't called David Duke a loser.  He hasn't called David Duke a scumbag.  He hasn't called David Duke a jerk or a phony or a con man.

PAT:  Right.  And why?  Because he supports him.

STU:  Because he supports him.

GLENN:  What do you think about Rush Limbaugh's excuse for this?  He said yesterday that Donald Drumpf was on the Sunday shows, and they have more gravitas.  They get more play than just the Megyn Kelly or Sean Hannity or something like that.  And so he was on those Sunday shows and he was worried about the poll numbers because the debate didn't go well.  And so he just didn't want to alienate anyone who might vote for him.  So it's not really an excuse.  I mean, it's still really bad.  But it's at least a reason why he didn't do it.  Do you buy into any of that?

STU:  I actually kind of do.  But the -- it's funny because people are saying, "Well, this is an excuse he's providing."  Actually it's the accusation.  The accusation is that he's pandering to white supremacists.

PAT:  That's not a good excuse.

STU:  It's not an excuse.  It's actually we're accusing him of.  

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes. 

STU:  And I think that is exactly what he's doing.  I mean, I don't know that anyone is saying that he -- while there is certainly long-term evidence and it will be exploited like crazy that he has bad racial tendencies, I don't think he's throwing a hood on him Friday nights.  That's not what I think Donald Drumpf is doing.

GLENN:  No, he's not a Klan member.  He's not a Klan member.

STU:  But he's pandering to these people like crazy.  And that's not a positive.  That's actually the negative we're accusing him of.  So I don't know if Rush framed that as an excuse.  But it's actually the thing I'm complaining about.

PAT:  I think the hoodies are for Tuesdays and Thursdays.  Not Fridays.

STU:  Okay.  Sorry.

GLENN:  Let me give you one thing real quick, and then I have to take a break.  

There's a new poll out in Florida.  38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz might be the Zodiac Killer.  The serial killer from, what?  A decade ago?  Or two decades ago?  The serial killer in Florida.  

38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer.  We'll get into it in a second.  But I just want to say this, even with Floridians believing that he's the Zodiac Killer, he still beats Marco Rubio in Florida. (laughter)

Featured Image: Screenshot of The Glenn Beck Program broadcasting from WMAL in Washington, D.C.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?