the o'reilly factor is on tonight. >> you have to be really careful with the cops, man, because if it wasn't for the cops we would be living in the wild, wild west in our neighborhood. >> some african americans like charles barclay are not jumping on the bandwagon. >> we'll have a special report. >> we want some of this, we're going to tear this [ bleep ] country up. >> one of the most vicious anti-white men in the country trying to stir up more trouble. we'll tell you about that and charles kroauthammerer will hav thoughts. also tonight, libertarian

john stossel has more. many americans don't know enough about their country, how does that tie into stossel's questioning? who is jonathan gruber? >> i couldn't tell you. >> caution, you are about to enter the no-spin zone. the factor begins right now. hi, i'm bill o'reilly, thank you for joining us tonight. president obama and the ferguson controversy. that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. with mr. obama under heavy fire for granting about 5 million illegal aliens resident in america, he has to tread softly on the rule of law. as you know many believe he is violating the constitution on the undocumented people. he is in a tough spot in ferguson, missouri, and some

believe they want to promote the idea that they are mowing down young black men. so far the president has not made any anti-police statements. but he has generated millions to have police put cameras on their helmets. that is a good thing, in areas where the police put cameras on their uniforms, charges against them by civilians have been lower. but the president has been vague on ferguson. >> it is not just a problem for some. it is not just a problem for a particular community or a particular demographic. it means that we are not as strong as a country as we can be. and when applied to the criminal justice system it means we're not as effective in fighting crime as we could be. >> that means absolutely nothing, it is blather, with all due respect.

talking points believes the president should stay out of the ferguson controversy. he obviously has to uphold the grand jury decision not to indict mr. wilson because if he subverted that, the rule of law could collapse. so mr. president, please stay out of it. all over america folks are discussing what happened in the michael brown killing. and that is a good thing. let's get the issue of race and policing on the table. of course, opinions vary. let's listen to former nba star charles barclay. >> we have to be really careful with the cops, man, because if it wasn't for the cops we would be living in the wild, wild west. i think we can't pick out certain incidents that don't go our way and act like the cops are all bad. i hate when we do that. because think about it. do you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be if it was not for the cops? >> but then you have anti-white fanatic louis farrakhan.

>> as long as you go to wendys and have a burger and go to sleep they're going to keep killing us. but when we die and they die, then soon we're going to sit at a table and talk about it. we want some of this earth, because we're going to tear this [ bleep ] country up. >> now haters like farrakhan will use any excuse to demonize white people and stir up racial hatred. that is what farrakhan does. it is a shame that some buy into it. if only the philosophy would take root that all americans have a common interest in prosper empty for all americans. if only we helped each other out, all of this garbage would

dissipate and farrakhan would be no more. and joining us, michael skolnik, who attended the white house meeting yesterday. and mr. rachel, where am i going wrong? >> i can't see where you're going wrong, bill, next question? >> all right, your view is contrary to a lot of african americans who believe the system is rigged against them. how did you arrive at your view? >> i can't say that -- if they feel that the system is rigged against them part of that reason is one, you have voted for that system. you gave power to that system that is against you. and that system wants to control you. you thought you were going to get something from that system and you can't depend on something without allowing them to control you. or you decided to opt out of the process and the state has went in and taken that place in

office, that is the system you have. >> you're talking about ferguson, missouri now? >> that can go for any city -- >> so you're talking in general, all right. but black americans are only 13% of the population and they do vote en masse. so they can't really change the system up against 63% of the process that is white. where am i going wrong? >> i think to the gentleman's point, the situation that played in ferguson, specifically, the prosecutor didn't protect the family of the diseased or put the case up that was fair for the diseased -- >> well, how do you know that -- you were not sitting in the grand jury. >> every legal expert looked at that. he was a prosecutor and defense attorney -- >> he didn't come in there, he sent his two assistants in there. he didn't go in there because guys like you were going to criticize him. i don't understand your general

view, your general view is that police are hunting down black people, is that what you believe? >> who said that? >> i'm just asking. >> no, my belief is there is the epidemic in the country. >> that there is a distrust between police departments and people of color. so that is leading to many deaths -- >> so if there is an epidemic of distrust, okay, would you say that is driven by what? >> bad policing. >> in what way? >> police officers are only in their cars -- >> not here in new york city. >> well, we have a much different policy in this city than ferguson -- >> alphonso, do you distress the cops out in los angeles? >> i don't have a profound case, how far do we want to take this? now we're given the suggestion

that police officers are going to get a bunch of federal money to put cameras on them. i'm not sure if that is really going to help the situation to deal with the trust issue. if we're going to go by what we see on camera, we watched what michael brown did on camera. >> we had him in the convenience store but we didn't have him getting shot. you have been a critic of michael brown, the deceased. you have been a critic of him, right? >> well, i hate to be a critic of him. it is a tragedy what happened to him. but yes, this kind of behavior. if we're looking for cops to behave a certain way, one of the ways to change a cop's behavior is to change your own behavior. >> all right, we say to michael brown, he was aggressive in this case. he was under the influence of marijuana. the grand jury believed that he was actively threatening the police officer. do you believe michael brown is a hero of some sort? >> no, michael brown is a

victim. >> 100% a victim. >> he didn't bring any of that -- >> no, no, no, but the grand jury knows because they ruled -- >> the grand jurors are missing the set of facts by prosecutors who didn't want to indict darren wilson. >> are you aware of any evidence that was not presented to the grand jury? >> yes, the law. it is unconstitutional, 1985. that a police officer could shoot a fleeing suspect. they presented that to the case. >> but the evidence was mr. brown was coming back towards him. >> and they shoot him -- >> no, no, i just told you the evidence said he was coming back. >> how do you know? >> the evidence that was presented in the grand jury. >> you haven't seen the evidence. >> the evidence that was presented to the grand jury. >> let's put darren wilson on the witness stand -- >> you don't believe in the grand jury system? >> of course i do, i don't believe the prosecutor presented a fair case. >> you're different than most --

many -- what charles barclay said, do you subscribe to that? >> hey, i may not be able to play basketball, but i'll be on barclay's team for that one. >> and why do you believe that he was correct in that statement. >> he is correct in the statement in the sense of look, you know, cops have a job to do. i don't think -- really they got better things to go do than to go around harassing people and pick on people because of their skin color. they don't want no trouble, they want to do their jobs and go home to their families. as far as it is, decreyes, it i correct, we don't have all bad cops just like blacks are not all bad. i think there are a lot more good cops than bad cops. >> all right, thank you, gentlemen. some conservatives want to punish president obama over the illegal immigrant situation. we'll tell you how. and later, the war on

christmas begins. take a look at this sign put up by atheists.

according to "the washington post" some congressional republicans are developing a plan to stop funding so that the president's plan on executive ordering can't be accomplished. it can be denied t to certain agencies and that is what the republicans are investigating. >> if congress passed the funding bill, did it tie the president's plans on the executive immigration order, basically did it or made it impossible to carry it out would the president veto such a bill? >> yes. >> and if the president does veto such a bill the government shuts down and chaos happens. now here in new york city, monica crowley, and from washington, kirsten powers. so monica, do you think the republicans in the house are

going to try to defund say homeland security, one of those agencies that deal with illegal immigration. >> well, i think the leadership doesn't want them to do that. john boehner will do everything he can despite the statements to the contrary. we've seen it in the past. if there is a revolt and a way to do that, they will, but i don't think john boehner will allow it to happen. >> they could do an initial vote claiming the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to do what the president did last week. that is a symbolic vote. then what he is planning is step two, which would be sort of a funding bill that is a hybrid between the continuing resolution on the immigration agencies only as well as the massive fund to fund the bill through 2015. >> so they pass both and

president obama vetoes it, so what good is it? >> well, two things, number one if you separate them out then he will be forced to veto strictly just the immigration -- >> what does he care? >> right, and what the republicans are trying to do, let's wait until the gop senate has con ovened and let -- convened and let them deal with it. there is no way that the new congress is going to want to get all tied up in this again when they're starting fresh in january. if they don't act now that is it. >> even if they do pull it, the president vetoes it, you're into next year anyway. now on the basis of constitutionality powers, you're not a lawyer but you follow this stuff. would you be surprised if the supreme court comes back and says this is unconstitutional. the president doesn't have the authority to stop deportations at will. would you be surprised if that happens? >> i think it is probably a close call.

there are people on both sides who say -- take both sides. you have somebody like lawrence tribe who is one of the most respected constitutional lawyers in the country. >> but he is a left wing guy. >> but look, he is one of the most respected constitutional lawyers in the country that says it is constitutional. there is another 100 lawyers saying it is constitutional. and you have people on the other side saying it is not constitutional. so i don't think it is an open and shut case. but i'm more inclined to decide to say the president has the prosecutor's ability to do it -- >> but you wouldn't be surprised either way. for you this is really boring and really doesn't matter and you would prefer to talk about something else. >> well, remember, the supreme court has slapped down this president on a number of overreach, including recent

appointments. so the president -- >> i'm betting they're going to say no. >> here is the other problem, bill, when you talk about the potential for the government shutdown, obviously the president doesn't want that -- they don't want to go down that road. but at some point, bill, the republicans and others have to stand up for our constitutional system. >> i don't think it has to be now though. let them get in -- >> now when it is still egregious -- >> they're not going to consolidate -- >> at some point you got to stop it in its tracks. >> i think when they get in, and have the power in the senate and the house then they can deliberate on a united front and say we don't believe this is right. but on a united front, you're right, the president is going to kill them. >> if they don't do it now they're not going to do it. >> all right, you can go home now, powers. >> all right, thank you. ahead, ladies, the war on

christmas begins. an annual event that people deny. and later, charles krauthammererrrrrr

unresolved problems segment tonight. every christmas season there are people who try to diminish the celebration of jesus' birthday. we all know it. but we do have a bunch of war on

christmas deniers who say that i and others are making the whole thing up. well, here is the first evidence this year. a billboard put up by an atheist group telling children to skip church on christmas day. nice, right? the billboards are run in a number of states. >> a lot of atheists feel alienated this year and we want them to not feel alone and to admit that okay, there is no god and to be open about that. >> our psychotherapy expert, who is agnostic. i cannot understand for the life of me why anybody would try to diminish the christmas season, why would they do it explosive. >> here is why, when you feel like you are in the minority you experience the desire to try to push to sell your product, if you will. to sell your belief in a loud way to others in order to make yourself feel better to validate

your view. to make sure others hear you. >> you know, but it's so counterproductive. if you look at it just from an objective point of view. putting up a sign like this just makes people angry with you. all right? because they feel they're being insulted. and they are, it is an insulting sign, is it not in. >> it is horrifically disrespect ing, not unlike the bully, who is pushing people down in order to make people feel better. that is what is happening here. >> so you're feeling is that atheists don't feel very good about themselves because they don't believe in the deity? >> well, no, not all atheists are as nasty as what is happening here. some atheists have a true belief that there is no god. and they feel very comfortable

with that. but there are others who have a very uncomfortable belief about it. they feel the need to push others down. and that is the group that you're seeing here. a group of people all coming together in a gang-like format in order to push other people down. but not all atheists are like that. >> now, why would that bullying group, and i don't think there are that many of them. but there are some prominent media people in that crew. why would they say you know what? this is not classy. it is not a nice thing to do. our christmas traditions, children love them. families get together. gifts are exchanged. it is a season of generosity and good will toward men. it almost seems sadistic that you would try to hammer down something like that. >> isn't that so sad? when i work with families in which one member of the family unit is atheist, and the rest are not they have this

relationship dynamic exactly in which you are describing that is happening with the media and with the others who are not atheists. and it is very upsetting in a family unit when you have one person shouting loudly in their nasty way about how everybody else in the family should be believing what they're believing. the pushing of other people down, the nastiness. the sign i saw with the little girl quite frankly is very symbolic for how much of a paradox it is. the sign has the little girl saying all i want for christmas is not to go to church. well, it's christmas. christmas is all about the celebration of christ, but now what she wants for christmas is not to go to church. so that is very confusing, which once again shows us why. there is an emotional confusion for some who are atheists in their need to push their product to others to help themselves feel their right.

>> you probably know that we've done this over the years and we point out you know we won the campaign with the department stores who are ordering their employees not to say merry christmas. that is over with. and it is because the people said if you do that we're not going to shop at your store. so that went away. but i know tomorrow you're going to get the nasty little things in the media, here is o'reilly, phoney war. if somebody denies global warming they're all over them. but it is right before your eyes, there is the sign. what generates that denial? >> yeah, well, just like any type of denial if you don't allow yourself to believe a certain reality, then you can stay in your belief system. like anything, if you choose not to believe that somebody has hurt you in a hurtful marriage then you ignore the signs around you that that person is hurting you. denial is exactly what it is.

deny it is happening so therefore you feel like it's not. >> okay, doc, we appreciate it. charms krauthammerer, whether he believes the racial divide in america can ever be healed. and is it legal or not, whether facebook speeches caaaaa

stossel in the segment tonight as you may know our pal, john, is a big libertarian, believing folks should have the power to do pretty much what they want within the law, of course. the problem is some of the folks don't really know what is going on. >> who is johnathan gruber? >> i don't know. >> he is a singer. >> i don't know. >> the guy who worked on obamacare. >> okay. i don't know him. >> johnathan gruber. i do not know. >> i have no idea. anybody i should know? >> i asked 25 people. >> no, who is he?

>> of 25 people, only four knew. >> i do know who he is, it is the economist who thinks we're all idiots. >> well, he cooked the figures, he thinks the american people are stupid. >> well, you're one of the only ones here. >> that doesn't surprise me. >> so you don't think they're all stupid? >> no, i don't think they are, or they wouldn't have put all the republicans in the recent election. >> we sent stossel out with the simplest questions, who is the vice president. we put his picture up there. who is that? we don't know. you want the massive folks to have even more power and they are just not qualified, are they? >> they are, i want them to have more power over their own lives. >> but it would be chaos. >> no, people run their lives really well -- >> you think most people run their lives really well?

>> pretty well. >> have you looked at the economy? people run paycheck to paycheck. >> people buy cars, go to church, make good decisions. 22 million people work for the government. we're supposed to know the name of every bureaucrat? you're right about the big government, the big government is worse than the dumb people. but the founding fathers knew and you can see it in their letters between jefferson and madison, i don't want to get too pin-heady here. but they said, we can't let the mob rule. you have to have a republic that has very tight constraints on the quote unquote mob. but you want to mob to have free drugs? >> for themselves, their own lives if they want to. >> you want them to be even dumber than they are, you want them to be intoxicated and dumb in. >> look, there are a lot of people who are dumb, more

watching your show than mine, what is wrong with you people? >> american population, 325 million. 330 now that we have 5 million more residency. what percentage of those people have no clue on how the country is run and what is going on? >> about 90. >> see, i say 75. i say 25%. >> but that is good, we're a relatively free country, free to ignore government. 1 or 2% watching your show, pay attention. >> how can you make good decisions about the country if you don't know anything. >> i don't want to make decisions about the country. i want them deciding about their own lives and government should be limited so tyrants like

gruber -- >> you want them -- >> leave the people free to do anything peaceful. >> anything. >> anything peaceful. >> all right, i want you guys to weigh in. stossel, what i want is smaller government. i do want a road map telling people this is your responsibility. i don't want a bunch of stoned zombies walking around. and that is you want. and i don't think that is good, stossel. >> i just say the drug war does more harm than the drugs. okay. >> drug -- >> we're going to drug test you and make sure you're sober when you come on here. >> coming up, if you make threats on facebook can you be prosecuted?

korpiko

thank you for joining us, i'll bill o'reilly. in the legal segment tonight. the federal government investigation is still going on in ferguson, missouri, in the shooting death of michael brown. and facebook threats. let's take the federal investigation. the local is over. >> the grand jury came back, right? >> not going to be any indictment. aw what is the defense doing? >> he is saying he is investigating civil rights action against him. that would be beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard that when officer wilson went after brown, you have to prove all that. it was out of racial animas, and as seen, it was not in the state case. >> it has to be proved it violated the civil rights. the evidence will not tririse t that occasion. we have been able to see the evidence.

>> the forensic evidence will not change. >> the investigation will probably lead nowhere. but there will be a civil suit. the family of michael brown will file. who will they file against? >> they want to file a wrongful death lawsuit, potentially, against officer darren wilson, which is interesting. he has resigned now. but nevertheless he was acting as an official capacity -- >> he doesn't have any money. >> he doesn't have any money, but by the way, there is an amount of money they could go after if they were able to sue him. because the courts said if you were able to recover and can prove this then the amount of damages is open. he was acting as a police officer at the time. you want officers to be able to act decisively especially in life or death situations. and he was acting, so far as the grand jury has said -- >> because it can't -- qualified immunity. >> so he had qualified immunity. >> i still don't think they were

going to sue wilson, wouldn't they go after the town of ferguson -- >> the police department has immunity as well, unless they can show the standard, preponderance of evidence, a lower standard. >> but they will go back to the grand jury, you would expect there would be a civil lawsuit. >> both will not be able to recover on it. >> facebook, facebook makes me nervous. okay, so a guy that goes on facebook, where does he live -- >> allentown, pennsylvania. >> all right, the pennsylvania guy goes on and issues threats against a bunch of people. and they arrest him, and he gets sentenced to four years in prison. what exactly did he do? >> he went on facebook, and other social media. his wife left him. he went on facebook and said he wanted to kill her and went into a lot of detail. we're not going to mention exactly what he said about that. then an fbi officer came calling

to him. and he went and threatened the fbi. >> why would the fbi be involved? >> because it is a federal crime to use the commerce, ie, the facebook. >> so the feds come in and front him and he does what? >> she comes to the door to talk to him, monitoring the posts. there is an order to stay away from her. he says he wants to slit the throat of the female officer. >> threatening an officer on facebook. >> so what happened he was convicted, lower court upheld the conviction, third circuit court of appeals. this marks the first time the supreme court will hear this type of case. all lines of questioning, from just scalia, i believe they will say it is not a protected case. >> so it is a cyber crime if you threaten somebody else's life or well being, but that can go into a psychological era --

>> you hit the point. >> what the supreme court has to make it with, is whose mind? the guy that is posting the intent. he said i have no intent to threat. or you have the reasonable safety standard. but he says i didn't intend to make it a threat, i was using it as therapy. >> therapy, guilty. >> guilty, criminal terroristic threats are what these are considered and he was held accountable for it. i'm just sorry he is out already. 28 months was not good enough. >> well, maybe he wouldn't do it again, we hope nobody else does. krauthammerer is on deck. the racial hatred in the u.s., will it ever go away? charlelelelelele

back in the book segment tonight. new abc news poll about ferguson, missouri. do you approve or disapprove of the grand jury's decision not to charge the police officer? 48% approve. 45% disapprove. 7% unsure. so you can see the country is divided on the issue and it is ideology that also plays a part. joining us now, charles krauthammerer, and his book, things that matter. which makes a great gift. in our time, charles, do you think the racial divide will ever be healed? >> probably not in our lifetime. but when you think about the

span of say the last 50 years, the division between the races has been absolutely dramatically reduced to a point that would not have been imaginable 50 years ago. obama himself has talked about this, how far we've come. 50 years ago there was legal segregation against black people. 50 years later we have a black president, a black attorney general, a black head of homeland security. you could go through all of those. and just to talk about attitudes, forget about elected officials. you don't have to take a poll. look at advertising by celebrities. willie mays in his day was very rarely asked to do any promotion because you couldn't do that with a black athlete. today, and this is not for reasons of ideology or racial sympathy but purely for the commercial reason that people want to make money by adverti advertising. you see all kinds of african american celebrities, in sports, and sports figures. you have actors who are

promoted, who are actually being used to promote products which tells you how much the attitude and the -- has changed in the country in half a century. this is unmatched. i would defy you to name one country in the world where that attitude change has been so radical. i don't think there is one. >> now, the black underclass, the people who are poor and live in neighborhoods that are dangerous and people who feel they don't have any chance, all right, that they're just -- the system is stacked against them, that is entrenched right now, and then the people like sharpton and these demagogues that feed them this hopelessness situation and it's not your fault. it's white privilege and all this keeping you down. that's an industry in itself, is it not? >> no, there's no question that

there's a class of racial agitators who live off this, and to some extent we really have to criticize people who know better who are their enablers, the ones who fund some of those organizations like, you know, like al sharpton, for example. the president of the united states should not be inviting into the white house -- forget about all the other since al sharpton has committed and the fact that he's a tax cheat and all that, but you go back to the original sin, the ta wwana brawy case, making a deliberately false accusation of rape against a deputy -- i think it was a prosecutor in new york state. sharpton was behind that the whole way. in the end he said, sue me. and he was, in fact, sued by the guy, found to have defamed him and then never ended up actually paying the fine.

so this was adjudicated in a court. and a man who does that, who stokes racial hatred deliberately should not be anywhere near the white house. >> why is he, in your opinion? why? certainly president obama knows the controversy surrounding mr. sharpton. and yet he doesn't seem to care. >> it doesn't start with barack obama. go back to the election campaign of 2004 where al sharpton was one of the democratic candidates. do you remember the deference with which all the other democratic candidates treated him? this is a man who, given his history in the brawley case and incitement in several riots in new york city, race riots in new york city, should never have been given any of that deference. and in part, you know, shelby steele and others have written about this. among whites, it has to do with sort of racial guilt.

they have to show deference, otherwise they -- >> i think it's fear. >> i don't think they fear him. >> he can cause trouble. >> they would be considered racially insensitive unless they give him a deference. >> but i agree with you that he should not be in those precincts. but what about whites that just don't like blacks. blacks pick up on that and we know there's a certain white percentage who think we're low or whatever the word is. how prevalent is that? >> well, clearly not prevalent enough to prevent the election of a black president who, incidentally, carried north carolina, florida, and virginia when he ran for election in 2008. you know, that's not exactly minnesota, you know, lily white minnesota. clearly there are people in the country who don't like african-americans and who probably opposed obama on the basis of race. i would guess -- and i don't think anybody could show this one way or the other

empirically, that the number of whites who felt that it would be a good thing to elect an african-american as a way to symbolize the change in the country outnumbered, outnumbered the ones who opposed obama on the basis of race. >> all right, charles. as always, thank you. back to tip of the day. a new book that may be important for your well-being. the tip moments away.

test

back to tip of the day. a book you might want to read. it's important. in a moment. christmas is coming and the geese are getting fat. people don't care about geese, do they? what people care about are thoughtful xwifts. only three "don't be a pinhead" shows are left. they make fabulous gifts if you like me and dennis miller. then there's the billoreilly.com christmas store, which is all kinds of great stuff very

moderately priced, hats, mugs, shirts, including all of my books. i'll even sign them for you if you act quickly. now the mail. "mr. o'reilly you say you make judgments on the facts, but you called the football players who did the hands up routine dumb. they all went to college. you owe them an apology." you might have a point, mike. i don't know those guys so therefore my opinion is speculation. we've asked them all to appear on "the factor t ", and if they know what they're talking about, i will apologize. but i doubt they'll show up. ronald herzog, arizona "as a retired police officer i thank you for reporting the stats on police shootings in america." you're welcome. rich, "i commend you and your interview with benjamin crump. you were fair. the left needed toy sue you extend an olive branch, the right needed to see you practice tolerance tolerance." jared mat ya.

"no e-mailing christmas cards? i don't know anyone's address. i use facebook. welcome to the next generation, o'reilly." don't be a pinhead, use the mail, put a stamp on it, exert some energy. patrick shanahan, missouri "bill, enjoyed your talk about jimmy fallon last week. you were funny and entertaining." "without sounding intrusive, what did you talk with lorde about in the break?" new zealand, cody. the 17-year-old singer is from there and i've never been, but i want to go. "just renewed my premium membership to billoreilly.com and i'm excited to get "killing patton" free," plus you get discoustuff. check out the no spin news on race in america. that's the p.m. special news cast you get every day, the no spin news. "my christmas shopping is done. i've made donations to fisher

house, independence fund and wounded warriors." well, you are a patriot georgeann, very generous of you to do it. americans don't really like foreign news too much. it's far way confusing. but a new book called "america in retreat" by "wall street journal" journal columnist brett stevens said that america's foreign policy under president obama is putting every american citizen in great jeopardy. i recommend the book because it is fact-based and it's kind of frightening pinpointing how america's power is decline hg in the world. factor tip of the day "america in retreat," worth a look. and that is it for us tonight. please check out the fox news factor website which is different than o'reilly.com. oreilly@foxnews.com. name and town, name and town, word of the day, do not be restive. not festive, restive when

writing to the factor. our manage health segment returns on friday. what are you teed off about? what are you angry about? madashell, one word, mad as h hell@fox news.com. ms. megyn is next. i'm bill o'reilly. please always remember the spin stops here. we are definitely looking up. >> new york city readyying for riots in the choke hold death case? could it be the next ferguson? we are live with how police are

preparing. >> flight risk. a tiny piece of technology that is so explosive it could take down a tiny plane. every passenger has it on them. the war on christmas continues. new billboards calling for you to skip church. just fine or over the line? "fox & friends first" starts ra right now. ♪>> good morning from the rainy streets of new york city. thanks foech for waking up with us this morning. we are beginning with a fox news alert. the new york police department

readyying for riots. they are looking at whether to indict an officer. he was put in a choke hold being arrested for selling nontaxed cigarettes in staten island. he died minutes later. new york city already filled with protestors in the wake of the ferguson grand jury decision. extra officers will be on the street in case there is violence. >> this is a department that has a lot of experience dealing with various forms of demonstration. >> coming up in a few minutes we will have a live report outlining the plan ahead of the grand jury decision. michael brown's stepfather could soon be facing charges. >> that's lewis tag telling protestors to go out and torch buildings after the grand jury decided no