I just fact checked 13 things said by people in the attic over the past month that seemed a little dubious to me. In each case the posters stated those things as facts.
10 were outright lies, two were tough calls and I wouldn't argue about them, and one was, much to my surprise, the truth. Anyway the point is maybe we should all start to fact check before telling people that things are facts, or polls indicate such and such, or that the person they are aiming there vitriol towards is an idiot. It seems too many people just make up stuff, post it as the truth.

A. G. LORETTA LYNCH, OBAMA REGIME’S LATEST 1ST AMENDMENT OPPONENT SHOULD RESIGN
DECEMBER 8, 2015 COACH COLLINS 2 COMMENTS
By Alec Rooney, Christian Action Network and CiR guest writer

If Loretta Lynch had a shred of understanding of her true role as Attorney General of the United States, she would be resigning about now.

So join the chorus letting her know that she should do just that. Sign the Christian Action Network’s petition calling for her resignation.

Immediately after 14 people were shot to death and nearly two dozen wounded in San Bernardino, Calif. last week, Lynch put on her top-nationwide-United-States-official hat and roundly condemned anyone who might dare speak ill of Muslims.

She even threatened prosecution of anyone whose words about Islam “edge toward violence.”

Who committed the atrocity in California? Why, it was Muslims. Acting in the name of Islam. The same kind of bitter, murderous, peace-and-freedom-hating malcontents who have been murdering and destroying all over the globe for nearly as long as anyone can remember.

When she made her “edge toward violence” warning, take a look at the kind of violence that had just occurred. Fourteen people dead, a variety of races, ethnicities and religions, gathered for a holiday party. Yet it is a new, as-yet-nonexistent, hypothetical violence on which she chose to focus.

On Pearl Harbor Day, no less.

The blood was barely dry on the pavement.

What about the victims, Ms. Lynch? What about their families? What about the rest of us out here, left wondering where the next vicious Islamic husband-and-wife murder team will choose to start killing Americans, and when?

A real attorney general, at a time like this, addresses those concerns. She goes to the scene, offers comfort and even financial assistance to the families of the victims, makes a public pronouncement about how this kind of thing will not be allowed to occur again and that if it does, the perpetrators will without doubt, in the words of a recent president, be “brought to justice.”

She might even offer some words about killing innocent people in the name of religion, the danger of theocracy, the link that it all has to reckless, cynically partisan, self-serving immigration policy.

In a possible attack of conscience, but more likely an attack of backlash from pretty much every quarter, Lynch on Monday “walked back” her comments on speech against Islam. The term used by Politico on Monday night was “recalibrate,” which makes it sound like more of a scientific, expert thing than the stumbling-backward-with-arms-flailing thing it more likely is.

Her retreat needs to be more complete than that. She hasn’t been in office all that long, having been sworn in last April, but after this weekend, her tenure has definitely been long enough.

By JASON L. RILEY
Dec. 8, 2015 6:39 p.m. ET

“It seems that almost every year since the middle 1970s,” wrote Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, “we have awaited with hope or anxiety the determination of some major case by the Supreme Court, which would tell us that affirmative action transgressed the ‘equal protection of the laws’ guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . or, on the contrary, determine that this was a legitimate approach to overcoming the heritage of discrimination and segregation and raising the position of American blacks.”

Mr. Glazer wrote that in 1987 and couldn’t possibly have imagined it would hold true some 26 years later. Yet on Wednesday the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in this year’s major affirmative-action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. It will be the high court’s second go-round with the case, which concerns a plaintiff named Abigail Fisher who says the university discriminated against her as a white woman in rejecting her application.

In 2013 the justices voted 7-1 to send the case back to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals without ruling directly on the constitutionality of Texas’ affirmative-action program. Instead, the appeals court was instructed to re-evaluate whether a race-based admissions policy was really essential to the university meeting its diversity goals. The Fifth Circuit issued a second ruling last year, once again siding with the university, and now the case is back before the Supreme Court.

In a 2003 decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the use of racial double standards as a last resort in achieving “student body diversity.” One question before the court on Wednesday will be whether the University of Texas has in fact exhausted all of its race-blind options and is left with no other way to enroll what it considers a “critical mass” of black and brown students.

Since the Fifth Circuit didn’t bother, perhaps the justices will ask the university how it defines a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities, how admissions officers know when it has been attained, and precisely how it furthers the school’s educational interests. In 1997, the Texas legislature instituted a race-neutral policy that guarantees students who graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes automatic admission to Texas public colleges and universities. Minority enrollment increased dramatically as a result, so why does the University of Texas still need to racially discriminate?

The Supreme Court has already banned the overt use of racial quotas and set-asides, yet it continues to pretend that these practices don’t persist in everything but name. Court majorities studiously avoid ruling on whether the equal-protection clause in the Constitution means what it says, and college admission officials continue to favor certain racial groups over others in the name of meaningless and unquantifiable notions, such as “diversity” or “critical mass.”

Liberals today condone state-sponsored racial discrimination in the name of helping black people. But as Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the first Fisher decision explained, this was the same reasoning used by white segregationists in the Jim Crow era. “Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950s, but emphatically rejected by this Court,” Justice Thomas wrote. “And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then . . . the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”

Racial favoritism has correctly been described by Chief Justice John Roberts as “a sordid business,” and we should hope that the court can finally bring itself to outlaw the practice. But in addition to being foul, racial preferences have been counterproductive in addressing the needs of the intended beneficiaries. Smart students who would be academic stars at most schools are steered into institutions where they are overmatched academically in relation to their peers but satisfy the needs of administrators who care more about skin tones than graduation rates.

After the University of California system banned racial preferences in 1996, black and Hispanic enrollment declined at the more selective Berkeley and UCLA, but those reductions were largely offset by a rise in enrollment at less selective schools in the system. More important, empirical studies conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander show that the share of black and Hispanic graduates grew by more than 50% throughout the University of California system, including among graduates in the more challenging disciplines of math and science.

When college administrators play racial favorites, stigma and resentment ensue. The tensions we see on campus today are directly related to the racial spoils system that has evolved in academia over the past half-century. The left is trying to reconcile group preferences with equal protection under the law, and the Supreme Court in its ruling ought to explain why those two things are irreconcilable.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).