Bill O'Reilly melts down over Romney's election loss in his new Talking Points Memo because he can't come to grips with the fact that America has rejected conservatism yet again. He has to do a 'Dick Morris' and make up lies to validate his argument.

O'Reilly refers to Dennis Miller's idiotic remarks about how America has changed forever from people that he is comfortable with. WTF? Racist much?

MILLER: Do I think I'll ever see it go back in my lifetime to the other way? No, I don't. I think this is it. Do I think it's the America that I saw from 18 to 58? No, I don't. Is that the end of the world? No. It's not like I was in the shower this morning and found a lump in my armpit. That's always my fallback position. I've got a great life. But I'm just saying it is not the America I've grown comfortable with.

BillO rejected this on the premise that white America can reclaim the USA by loudly attacking SP's (liberals, aka secular progressives). You see, Mitt Romney lost the election because he wasn't loud enough on all the social issues that O'Reilly cares about. No, really -- just scream baby killer more often and Mittens would have won. Is traditional America gone for good?

So it's more about Romney's failure to build on McCain's vote than Obama doing anything. A stronger candidate would have defeated the President. Mr. Obama won the woman vote, blacks and Asians. But it was the Hispanic vote that really nailed Romney; 71 percent of Latinos voted for the President. And that was the difference in Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. Other states were impacted as well.

Romney took white males and Independents by significant margins. But when you bunch it all up together, when you bunch it up, it was an entitlement vote this year. American families earning less than $30,000 a year broke big for the President; 62 percent to 35 percent. So it's clear that left-wing ideology did not win the day for Barack Obama, big spending on federal programs did. That's the key. Because many in the media would have us believe that liberal ideology was confirmed by this election. It was not. However... however, secularism is certainly eroding traditional power. No question about it. Those Americans who attend religious services at least once a week voted for Romney 59-39, the problem is church going is on the decline in this country. Here's an example. Despite the President's controversial insistence that some Catholic entities provide birth control and after pills, Catholics supported Obama 50 percent to 48 percent down from 2008 but still a surprise to some.

The fact that Catholics voted for Obama destroys BillO's arguments and you know that's eating him up since he's a Catholic too. Now come BillO's Big Three talking points about the election results.

By the way, Mitt Romney didn't even try to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it. A mistake because President Obama is the poster guy for the secular progressive movement. The key question going forward is the SP Movement good for Americans no matter what their ethnicity or economic condition and the answer is no. Three vivid examples. Secular progressives champion a do-your-own-thing philosophy. No judgments about personal behavior are allowed in that arena. The public school system has adopted that philosophy. And that's now wreaking havoc on American society.

Isn't conservative philosophy all about being allowed the freedom from government to do your own thing? How times have changed, but BillO's premise about public schools is ridiculous. What does that even mean? Does he mean that kids can do homework and take tests if they feel like it?

In 2010, about 41 percent of American babies were born out of wedlock. That's up eight percentage points since 2000 and up an astounding 23 percentage points since 1980. Babies born to unmarried women drive poverty, every study shows that and American minority groups are the most affected.

In 2010, 73 percent of black babies were born outside of marriage; 53 of Hispanic babies were. The number was 29 percent for white babies. So the cycle continues. Minorities are more affected by poverty because the traditional family unit has broken down in those precincts. And rather than trying to reverse that, secular progressives want more entitlement spending. Nothing about changing libertine attitudes.

Did you see all of those Obama ads where he says to single women that if you vote for him he'll pay for you to screw a lot and have as many babies as you'd like? Minorities are affected by poverty because conservative governance excludes them in their policies.

On the abortion front, same thing; rather than trying to discourage taking the lives of millions of fetuses, the SPs have created a mythical "war on women" screaming that so-called reproductive rights are under assault. The abortion zealots want the procedure on demand, no matter how late term. And are stridently opposed to even counseling before this life- ending procedure is undertaken. Abortion is settled law in the USA but it should be discouraged because human DNA is present upon conception. Thus, the situation becomes a human rights issue. Ask yourself this question, should America be a country where potential human life, an undeniable fact after conception, is terminated for convenience... for convenience? Is that the kind of country we want? And the federal government is going to demand that citizens who oppose abortion pay for it? What say you Planned Parenthood?

Here's BIllO's favorite topic: abortion. Can you believe that we made up the war on women? Hah! Never mind that after the Tea Party craze erupted, conservative legislatures embarked on attacking women's rights on the local level at an incredible rate. Job creation or deficit reduction measures were not the most important thing to tea party zealots. It turns out that abortion was their number one issue, bearded by the federal deficit. And when two Republicans running for the Senate went off about how God wanted rapes to happen, well then, it's a done deal.

Finally, two states, Washington and Colorado, voted to legalize pot. Here are the grim stats on this idiocy. Since 2008, teenage pot use up 40 percent and heavy use for teens has increased 80 percent. States that have lenient medical marijuana laws driving those stats, why? Because legalizing pot sends a message that it's fine to use it and getting the drug at the corner pot shop makes it readily available to anyone. Ask any drug counselor. And he or she will tell you once a child is introduced to intoxicants that child's life changes for the worse. Some may not become substance-involved but millions will. Do we want to encourage that? The SPs, they don't care about addiction. They don't want limitations on so-called private behavior. No judgments. If you want to smoke drugs? Fine. If you want to abort a fetus? We'll drive you to the clinic. You want to have a kid when you're 16, no problem at all, we'll support you.

Many people feel that pot is much safer than alcohol. I don't partake of the wacky weed, but attitudes have changed in this country and Americans are tired of the foolish war on drugs that has cost the taxpayers billions of dollars with no results while more Americans are being locked up on drug-related charges to boost the privatized penitentiary system in America, not to mention the careers of the Mexican drug cartels.

If Mitt Romney spelled that out, what the secular progressive movement is really all about in strong vivid terms and how President Obama enables that, Romney would not have lost 71 percent of the Hispanic vote. I can tell you. I believe the majority of Americans can be persuaded that the far left is a dangerous outfit bent on destroying traditional America and replacing it with a social free fire zone that drives dependency and poverty.

Finally the big finish. Unbeknownst to Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney did address his hatred of the secular progressives and most of America when he said this:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I'd say he laid it out fairly well and very explicitly. And by the way, O'Reilly knows this very well since he called Mother Jones 'Possibly One of Fidel Castro's Favorite Publications' For Publishing Romney Tapes.

He's another one from the Dick Morris school of lying to his base. [Dick Morris Admits He Predicted a Romney Landslide Hoping To Help Him Win]